Gulf War Illnesses

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion and a co-opted member of the United States Congressional Committee of Inquiry into Gulf War Illnesses.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering for Gulf War veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and the dependants of those who have died from Gulf War illnesses since the conflict.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government assist Gulf veterans who are ill through the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme; by providing pension and other benefits to them and the dependants of those who have died; through the Veterans Agency's War Pensioner's Welfare Service; by giving medical treatment through the NHS and Defence Medical Services and by funding scientific research. Gulf veterans may also benefit from new arrangements introduced as part of the Government's Veterans Initiative.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend, to whom I am grateful, appreciates that few pray more fervently for our troops now embattled than the brave men and women who went before. How many of them receive war pensions for their still undiagnosed illnesses? Is my noble friend aware how concerned they are that we still await, 12 years on, even an interim report on Porton Down's study of whether it was safe to give them 14 and more vaccines in Gulf War I? When will the report emerge? And is it not disturbing that well over 40 per cent of our troops now in action have refused the anthrax vaccine, implying that many fear the vaccine more than Saddam Hussein's weaponry?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend asks three questions, the first of which is how many war pensions have been paid for undiagnosed illnesses. That information is not available. War pension is not paid for individual conditions or illnesses. Awards of war pension are for any disablement that can be accepted as causally related to service, the amount paid dependent on the overall assessed level of disablement. A Gulf veteran's pension may be made up of a number of different complaints. For example, complaint one could be undiagnosed illness; complaint two, bad knee; complaint three, post-traumatic stress disorder; and perhaps complaint four, asthma. The complainant will be given one pension for all these complaints on the basis of his percentage of disablement.
	As for the interim results from the vaccines interactions research programme, I visited Porton Down last Friday and was therefore able to check up on the interim results. Preliminary results will be available very shortly. A presentation is being made at Heriot-Watt University on 1st April which will report results on behaviour, sleep and other matters. Preliminary immunology results will be presented between 12th and 16th April at the meeting of the Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research. Those results will be made available to Parliament.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, how many Gulf War veterans are now in this situation, with illnesses still not diagnosed? What progress is being made to identify such disorders including those thought to be illnesses associated with deserts?

Lord Bach: My Lords, on the first question, the noble Lord will know that the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme has seen more than 3,300 patients. The programme has two main purposes, the first of which is to provide the patient with a diagnosis of his or her medical condition and recommend appropriate treatment. Secondly, the programme gathers statistical information which will be made available as a resource for researchers.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said that he will make available to Parliament the information on test results. What steps will the MoD take to disseminate that information to all those who are suffering or believe themselves to be suffering from Gulf War syndrome?

Lord Bach: My Lords, these are the interim results and they will be announced to Parliament. The timetable after that is as follows. The programme will be completed by August 2003 and written up by December 2003. After peer group review, which is very important in this case, it will be published in 2004. How the actual report and its conclusions are made known to Gulf War veterans is yet to be decided.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as the national chaplain to the Royal British Legion. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already mentioned our troops who decided that they do not wish to avail themselves of immunisation against anthrax. Can the Minister confirm that any of our servicemen or women who, having refused that vaccination, are then tragically killed or injured in the event of anthrax use in Iraq will in fact still receive compensation that may be the entitlement of all servicemen and women in those circumstances?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I must put the record straight. Our records show that as of 12th March around 56 per cent of those offered immunisation against anthrax opted to receive it. That figure has steadily risen since the programme was relaunched in May 2001. We are confident that the majority of personnel now in the Gulf will opt to receive immunisation and we expect take-up to improve still further. The 56 per cent figure is an overall figure which includes some personnel not deployed in the Gulf at the present time. We estimate—it is an estimation—that overall up-take among personnel currently deployed to the Gulf is around 70 per cent. Those who do not receive the anthrax vaccination will be protected in precisely the same way as others.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it is acceptable that it has taken 13 years to come up with the report?

Lord Bach: My Lords, a great deal of research has been done into the illnesses undoubtedly suffered by Gulf War veterans. There is dispute as to whether or not Gulf War syndrome exists. At least £8.5 million has been spent on research. These matters take a considerable amount of time. Not all the research was begun in the first few years after the first Gulf War ended. Much of it has been undertaken in the past few years.

Rail Freight: Working Time Directive

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the competitive impact on rail freight in Great Britain of the implementation of the Working Time Directive later this year.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the working time regulations will apply to all member states and all companies from 1st August 2003. The effect of the proposals on transportation costs is estimated to be minimal, based on the regulatory impact assessment, which was published as part of the consultation document—extension of the working time regulations to the excluded sectors—in October 2002.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the letter which he sent me. First, who among railway management was consulted about the directive as in 1998 there was no one overall who could be consulted? Secondly, as regards the hierarchy within which drivers and other people can be, or should have been, trained, is the Minister aware that the companies at the top of the hierarchy such as GNER can recruit whereas those at the bottom such as the freight operators will be left with no drivers at all? Thirdly, is it not irrational to move from a safe mode of transport towards a much less safe mode of transport in terms of road safety, and is that not contrary to the Government's policy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand that the original railways social partners agreement of 1998, which was agreed by the industry and unions across Europe in 1998, involved the full participation of this country. Therefore, the industry has known about the partnership, which was included in the horizontal amending directive, for some five years. In terms of the impact, I wonder whether the industry has looked carefully at the derogations, which are substantial in this case in terms of night work and other areas for mobile workers; that is, train drivers. Until one has worked through that, it is difficult to assess whether the measure will have a major impact. There is no evidence to show that it should have a major impact. As regards the road freight industry, the draft regulatory impact assessment concluded that the measure would not affect the relative position of companies in tradable sectors.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, why did the Government themselves not carry out an industry impact assessment before agreeing to the directive?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness asks why we did not talk to the industry about the impact of the measure. There has been endless consultation. Consultation on the working time directive started in 1993. Consultation took place in 1998 on the railways social partners agreement and on the horizontal amending directive. Regulatory impact assessments have been undertaken of that. Major consultation is also being undertaken on the draft regulations.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I believe my noble friend said that the cost of the measure to the railway industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—based on the regulatory impact assessment would be minimal. Is he aware that at a meeting of representatives of the railway industry and his officials in January which I had the honour to attend, we were told that the impact assessment covered hospital doctors, maritime workers and railway workers with one global figure for the lot? The industry was asked desperately for information to enable the Government to work out what the regulatory impact assessment should cover. Does my noble friend agree that more work needs to be done before he can state that the measure will have no impact whatever on the industry?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, our assessment of the cost to the transport industry as a whole is £100 million. It is difficult to obtain a precise figure for the rail freight industry as it is difficult to obtain the precise number of workers from employment surveys. Given that there are about 715,000 transport workers but only 10,000 railway freight workers, it is fair to say that the impact is likely to be minimal.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems with the supposedly level playing field of Europe is that it is more in the nature of a race course where the member states impose their own handicaps in terms of their willingness to abide by the particular regulations? Is it not the case that the British feel—I think that it is certainly true of the road hauliers—that they will be disadvantaged in trading terms by reason of the fact that the British on the whole tend to honour regulations which many of their European competitors do not?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a common cause of complaint for which there may be some justification. We are talking about the railways not the road haulage industry. I believe the noble Lord will find that the same complaint is made on the part of other European countries. I believe that there is nothing to suggest that overall we do significantly better than others in terms of implementing the measures we are discussing.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we tend to lose sight of what the directives are really all about? They are about a better life for workers in various industries, are they not? Should we not be glad that our Government, a Labour government, have gone along with the directives?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I very much agree. Given that that important social legislation has been around for 10 years and it has taken five years to implement the railways social partners agreement, a complaint about how long it had taken to implement would be much easier to understand than one that states that the legislation has been rushed through.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, how will the new directive be policed? How many people will be involved?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give figures as to how many people will police the directive. It replaces normal employment legislation. I shall write to the noble Earl and give him the figures.

Heavy Goods Vehicle Operator's Licence

Baroness Walmsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to amend the remit of the heavy goods operator's licence to enable overall traffic impact to be taken into consideration.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we believe that local authorities are best placed to deal with planning and local traffic matters, and that their current powers are sufficient. They may also object to traffic commissioners against applications for goods vehicle operators' licences. When deciding such applications, traffic commissioners have wide powers, including the consideration of the suitability of the operating centre itself and any exit or entrance leading from a public road. We have no plans to amend the existing licensing system.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but is he aware that once a licence has been granted, the local authority has no power in the matter? Will he accept that we have a democratic deficit, as the law does not allow elected representatives of the local community to have any say in proposals to vary the terms of a licence? For example, is he aware that, in the town of Alsager in my area, the town council is being told that it has no power at all in the matter, even though a recent proposal to vary the terms of a licence will actually double the heavy goods traffic on the B road through the town?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely an issue of that kind should be dealt with by the local authority's own powers. It can make traffic regulation orders to stop heavy lorries using unsuitable roads by imposing weight or dimension restrictions. That is how a local authority can avoid an addition of heavy traffic. It should not and could not be done through the heavy vehicle operator's licence. Of course, there is a provision for a review of such licences every five years and, on those occasions, local authorities have the same say. I should add that local authorities can appeal to the Transport Tribunal against decisions of the traffic commissioners.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the regulations allow the traffic commissioners to take into account the question of exit and entrance to a road, they cannot take into consideration the suitability of the road because it is the public highway and assumed to be suitable? Would he consider amending the powers of the traffic commissioners so that they may take into account the whole of the route over which a lorry will pass? That is what affects people, and that is the matter about which people are complaining.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what noble Lords are asking for is a duplication of controls. The traffic commissioners obviously have responsibility for the technical aspects of vehicle operation. They also have responsibility for the operating centre, which is where the vehicles are kept, leave from in the morning and go back to when they have finished work. However, everything else that the noble Lord wants can be controlled by traffic regulation orders, which are the responsibility of local authorities.
	Surely a liberal democratic party ought at least to believe in local autonomy, and say that the issue should continue to be under local democratic control rather than under the control of appointed traffic commissioners. I am astonished at the idea that the situation should be called a democratic deficit.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, matters are in fact under the control of local authorities, but it is up to the police to enforce them. They have to follow a lorry for the whole distance restricted, which is absolutely impossible given that police resources are at present so overstretched.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not hear a question.

Emergency Telephone Calls

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any 999 telephone calls are answered by a call centre in New Delhi.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no 999 telephone calls are answered by a call centre in New Delhi. They are all directed to the appropriate emergency service by a network of call centres in the UK.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, a while ago I was by driven by a very charming Indian who on a previous occasion had witnessed a bad accident. When he dialled 999 and informed the operator that he was on Western Avenue, the operator said that he did not know where that was. When asked where he was situated, the operator replied, "New Delhi".

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that could have been an Indian in another part of the country, and it could have been a joke. I am assured categorically that no calls are handled otherwise than in the UK. Two centres have been put out by BT, one in Bangalore and one in New Delhi, but they are to deal with the company's directory inquiries and conferencing work.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the Minister care to have a bet with me that practically no one in this Chamber knows what to dial instead of 999 in Europe?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would be happy to take that bet because I am well briefed to answer the question, but the noble Baroness may be right about the rest of the House.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what arrangements are being made, if any, to combine the call centres for the ambulance service, the fire service and police, as has been suggested? Is that proposal going forward?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know the answer, but the matter does not have anything to do with call centres for BT. It is to do with the emergency services—

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is to do with 999.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, but it is not to do with the BT part of the matter, which is handling calls to the emergency services.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us the assurance that the person one speaks to when one phones 999 will have a good knowledge of the locality from which one is phoning, and of the local accent? Someone from South Wales might struggle with a Northumbrian accent, for instance.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a code of practice between the PTOs and the emergency services on how such calls should be handled. I do not believe that they are handled on a local basis. The call is routed to the first free operator, and that operator may be in another part of the country, so calls do not necessarily go to the locality. That is judged to be the best and speediest way to handle them. There is a forum for such issues, but that is believed to be the best route.

Lord McNally: My Lords, although the idea of dialling 999 is deeply embedded in our culture and history, does the service keep track of modern technologies? For example, has there been any study of being able to text, e-mail or use other new technologies to summon assistance?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know whether any research of that kind is being done. I will make inquiries and let the noble Lord know what is in train.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister aware that lots of people, including several whom I know, have phoned 999 for the police when someone has been in their home and been told that they are in a queue? Will he give that the attention that it needs?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, does the noble Baroness's question relate to the police or to the telephone operating service? If it is to the latter, then clearly I would appreciate examples being given so that the matter can be investigated. If it concerns the police, then obviously it is an issue that the police themselves need to investigate.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what matters is not necessarily where the call is answered but the response times of the emergency service? Can he say what tracking is done to ensure that those who dial 999, for whatever reason, receive the attention that they require?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have not done any tracking but, as I said, there is a code which covers the matter. Presumably, if people have any sense that the system is not operating correctly, they should make the appropriate complaint.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that huge numbers of calls are made following accidents? For example, 1,000 calls can be made in connection with one accident. More than anything else, the police would be assisted if calls were divided between the urgent and the less urgent. Is progress being made on the realisation of a 555 number for less urgent calls so that the public divide their calls between the two?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I understand it, the Question concerns whether calls are being dealt with in New Delhi. I believe that I have answered that. Further questions on the exact way that calls are handled in all situations are outside the scope of the Question.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on Iraq and the European Council.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [HL]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Corruption: Committee

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Commons message of 11th March be now considered, and that a committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons, to consider and report on any draft Corruption Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:
	L. Bernstein of Craigweil,
	L. Campbell-Savours,
	L. Carlisle of Bucklow,
	B. Scott of Needham Market, L. Slynn of Hadley,
	L. Waddington,
	B. Whitaker;
	That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
	That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	That the committee do report no later than four months after the presentation of any such draft Bill;
	And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons today at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3A.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill [HL]

Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 2 [Referendum question]:

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) In those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils the following additional question shall be asked—
	"Do you agree with the proposal to reorganise the county and district councils in your area into a single unitary tier of local government?"."

Lord Greaves: With Amendment No. 40, at the beginning of our third day in Committee, we return to a question that we have already discussed at considerable length, and therefore I shall be brief. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
	In Amendment No. 40, we suggest that the matter of the referendum for a regional assembly in a region can be tackled in another way. The amendment proposes a second question, which asks simply whether people agree that, in addition to having a regional assembly, their local government should be reorganised on a unitary basis in their area.
	Amendment No. 47 concerns a slightly different, but related, issue. It states:
	"Where there is a proposal to reorganise local government in any electoral area, only persons entitled to vote at the election of councillors for such area shall be entitled to vote on such a proposal".
	This has two parts to it, the more minor being that anyone who is not entitled to vote in local elections in an area would not be able to vote. The more important part would exclude from the vote all electors who do not live in the area to be reorganised. Therefore, the amendment would tackle the problem, which we discussed at some length, of people in areas such as Tyneside and Wearside, which are already unitary, being able to vote on whether the counties of Northumberland and Durham in the North East, for example, should be unitary. The same applies to all the other regions.
	It seems to us to be a fundamental matter of democratic competence that the people responsible for deciding what kind of local government structure they have should be the local government electors for that area. We shall no doubt debate this matter again and again as the Bill goes through its various stages in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: We have already discussed the whole business of decoupling, and it seems to me that this is another variation of that. However, we are absolutely at one with Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in that we regard these two issues as quite distinct. One concerns the matter of regional assemblies and whether people believe that they should have them, and the other concerns whether people want wholesale reorganisation of their local authorities.
	In considering the eight areas, we know that no one single area would not undergo a fairly major upheaval of local government if they answered "Yes" to the question of a referendum—or, rather, if the Secretary of State decided that there should be a referendum. In answer to that, I believe that the Minister used the word "mantra". I read much of what the Minister in another place said on the issue. The Government's argument is, "We don't want another tier of government".
	It is possible that when local people understand—again, I use the Minister's words—that the "price to pay" for regional assemblies is that their local government arrangements must undergo major upheaval, then it will become a very different argument. People will understand that by saying "Yes" to the simple question of a referendum, they will be giving way to upheaval in local government.
	I read very carefully the Constitution Committee report on this matter, and I read it even more carefully when it was brought to our notice by the Minister. I believe that that is something he may regret by the end of the debate. The Constitution Committee was also concerned about this issue. I believe that there is at least an argument for saying that, in order for people truly to have a choice about regional government, they should truly have a view about how it should be arranged within their area. They should not have to take as read that an answer to one question indicates an answer to another.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have listened with increasing anxiety to what my noble friend Lady Blatch has said throughout the passage of the Bill thus far. She has alerted me to the fact that this is a far more deep-rooted and sinister measure than it appears on the surface. The Bill has a most innocent title, but I cannot help feeling—I shall not go into it at length now—that it is the death knell of county councils. I hope that that is not the Government's intention, but that is how increasingly it seems to me.
	I am always imperfectly informed about the relationships and the decision-making that goes on between the Front Benches. I tend to be rather unhappy about them. Am I right in thinking that an agreement has been reached between the usual channels that this Committee stage should end precipitately this evening? I shall give way immediately if the noble Lord can clear up the matter.

Lord Rooker: No, that is not right. I must be very careful about my use of words. The Committee stage will finish not this evening but today. Today will finish only when this House adjourns. The proceedings will take as long as they take, and it does not matter to me whether that is tomorrow or the day after. It will still be "today" if we do not adjourn. That is what was agreed.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was correct in my suspicion. The Minister will continue with the Bill, but he did not say whether the situation has been agreed through the usual channels. I would like to know whether that is so.

Lord Rooker: I am not the business manager. As I am instructed, the Committee stage of the Bill will finish today, but in parliamentary terms today ends when the Committee adjourns. Noble Lords who have been Members of the another place will know that the day is as long as the Committee wishes to make it; it is not limited to 24 hours.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My memories of another place are more distant than those of the noble Lord, but I assure him that in this respect they are undying. I am well aware that if necessary and if convenient for the government of the day, one day can last all eternity. I have long nurtured the suspicion that my noble friends on the Front Bench—the nicest possible people—long ago lost their sense of smell and from time to time are unable to detect the downright guile of the Government. I believe that this is one of those occasions. The Bill appears increasingly full of menace. As I understand it, today will go on for ever until we have agreed to the Bill. I make the protest now because I believe that that is wrong. If there has been any shadow of an agreement between the two Front Benches, I am deeply sorry but I regret profoundly that my noble friends believe that in the business of legislation they can dispense altogether with the sense of smell that nature gave them.

Baroness Hamwee: Can the Minister confirm that the pro forma for responses to the soundings exercise does not include a reference to the reorganisation of local government? That being so, why not, given that the Government present this as inextricably intertwined with the establishment of regional assemblies? The notes that accompany the pro forma refer to reorganisation. They say at paragraph 16:
	"we may look at a range of other factors, which are set out in the Bill"—
	of course, the Bill is not part of the soundings document—
	"in order to choose which regions are to have a local government review. These may include the potential effects on the two-tier (county and district) local authorities in a region . . . and the differences between regions of those effects".
	It also states:
	"The effects of a review on the two-tier local authorities in the region (taken as a whole) are likely to vary between regions".
	Interestingly, the paper goes on to say in paragraph 25:
	"These soundings are initially to inform the Secretary of State's decision on which region(s) should be subject to a local government review".
	Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee the approach to the soundings exercise in that regard, given that the Government have chosen to combine those two elements so inextricably.

Lord Rooker: I promise that I shall never be deflected from providing the Committee with information on which to have a debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that I shall regret pointing out that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House published a report. I do not regret that at all. It is freely available; it is not a secret report. It is the property of the House and I referred to its contents last week. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that people have lost their sense of smell. I repeat that the Government do not have a majority in the Committee.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord should not misinterpret me. I did not say "People had lost their sense of smell". I said that with deep regret and immense lamentation my noble friends on the Front Bench, or those in the usual channels, had lost their sense of smell. I made the comment very personal.

Lord Rooker: The noble Lord certainly did. In some ways I was trying to depersonalise it. In the past 18 months I have learned that this place works on agreement and that the Government cannot impose their wishes because they do not have a majority here. The basic premise is that the House will not adjourn today until the Committee stage has concluded, however long it takes. I have no idea how long that will be, but the longer the better because it will give me a better chance to put the Government's robust case for the Bill.
	This is a package. If one buys the elected regional assembly, one buys the local government changes that go with it. As I have said several times, at the time of voting in a referendum people will know the consequences for their local government structure and it will be up to them to make the decision. If they are more wedded to their local government structure than to the proposed regional assembly, they will vote no in the referendum as that is the way in which to preserve the present situation. It is as simple as that.
	The pro forma raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, contains nine questions and 29 explanatory paragraphs. The soundings document is all about asking people whether they want a referendum. Paragraph 17 states that,
	"A review will inevitably have some effect on the local authorities in two-tier areas".
	There is no secret about the consequences of the policy. It is also clear in the White Paper. This has not been sprung on the Committee or on the establishment outside to whom the soundings paper was sent. It concerns the level of interest in holding a referendum. That is the question that is asked in the pro forma. The consequence of elected regional assemblies is single-tier government because we are not prepared to countenance another tier of government. I make no apology for that.
	We have said that we would need rationalisation, because without it we would be adding to the complexity of the structure of government with regional assemblies. We want a clear division of responsibilities between the different tiers of government and clear links of accountability so that the electorate are not fobbed off, as they sometimes are, with different tiers of authorities. Voters will take into account the implications when they vote.
	Repeatedly I have said that booklets will be posted through every door so that every household of voters will be fully aware of the consequences for regional government and other factors before they vote. I do not believe we can be more reasonable than that. There is nothing suspicious about it. It is not revolutionary. For local government reorganisation to be subject to a vote by people in the area concerned would be revolutionary, but we are a reforming government not a revolutionary government.

Lord Greaves: I thought that the Minister was about to claim that they are a revolutionary government as they allow people to vote on local government reform. The problem is that it is tied up with other matters. We are not afraid of revolution where appropriate. On the length of time that we may sit—clearly I cannot speak for the Conservative Front Bench—we are in favour of finishing the Committee stage today. We are adamant that the Bill must be scrutinised properly; we are not adamant that people should make the same speeches today that they made last Thursday and the week before. We shall attempt not to do that but I cannot promise. Politicians are foolish if they promise that they will not say anything.
	The noble Lord did not respond specifically to Amendment No. 47, although it is an alternative approach. I have no doubt that we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
	In responding to Amendment No. 40, the Minister once again repeated the mantra: "We are not prepared to countenance it and that's that". The House may have an alternative view. Parliament will decide the state of this legislation and we are not prepared to be bludgeoned or blackmailed by the Government into not doing what we think is right.
	The Minister referred to "clear lines of accountability" and to "not being fobbed off with two tiers". Yet again, as last week, it sounds as though the Government are not just rooting for unitary local authorities where there is regional government, but for unitary local authorities full stop. In the future we may have to probe whether the Government's agenda is to have unitary authorities everywhere regardless of whether one has regional assemblies. That is the pure logical outcome of what the Minister said.
	Having said that, I am tempted to test the opinion of the Committee. I am advised that it might be best to do so at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. So, on a distinctly temporary basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) Any statement under subsection (2) shall be accompanied by an estimate by the Electoral Commission of their best estimate of the total annual cost of paying for the proposed regional assembly and the regional administration in the referendum area."

Lord Hanningfield: Given previous discussions in Committee, it is important for the electorate to know the costs of establishing regional government. The White Paper Your Move, Your Choice stated that the cost of running a regional elected assembly would be around £25 million per year. The real cost will be for the reorganisation of local government.
	When the referendums are held, the local government reorganisation will have been sorted out. The Government say that they want the electorate to vote on whether they want a region and whether they want the local government to be reorganised in that area. We have been told that there will be a year's process of looking at local government reorganisation in the area. Therefore, if one is establishing unitaries in a county there will be an approximate cost. We feel very strongly indeed that the public should be told the costs of reorganisation.
	The cost of running the assembly will be the cost of the Members, the staff and establishing a building for the assembly. The cost of reorganisation will be considerable. As we have said during these debates, it will be probably up to £2 billion nationally. Certainly, where one has a preponderance of two-tier authorities there will be a tremendous amount of reorganisation. Even in, for example, Yorkshire and Humberside where authorities are mainly unitary there will be considerable costs of reorganisation. We wish the public to be aware of the cost of reorganisation as well as the cost of setting up regional assemblies. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Can the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, explain whether in proposing that there is an estimate for paying not just for the assembly but also the "regional administration" he can distinguish between the cost of regional administration under the aegis of a regional assembly and regional administration full stop? We have regional administration now. I am sure that the noble Lord does not intend the public to be confused by the inclusion of existing costs with future costs.

Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may clarify the matter. The amendment refers to "the proposed regional assembly". It is those costs. I accept the comments of the noble Baroness that there is presently the cost of running a regional office. However, we are talking about the costs of running a proposed regional assembly, the newly established body that will be set up after the referendum.

Baroness Hanham: Is it the Government's intention to allow any regional assembly to build new headquarters? With the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and London, untold millions were invested into new headquarters, which are probably basically unnecessary and certainly in regional government terms should be unnecessary.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall deal with Amendment No. 43 first. It asks that the Electoral Commission's estimate of the total annual cost of paying for the proposed regional assembly be looked at. The Electoral Commission has no expertise and no background. It is not part of its function to provide the figures. Estimated figures have been provided, as the noble Lord said, by the Government in Your Region, Your Choice. As he said, the Government's estimate at the moment is running costs of £25 million per year. Around £5 million of that will be directly offset by staff transferring from existing bodies.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, raised the question of local government reorganisation. He argued that this will cost money. It may. We cannot approach the matter and issue sensible figures until the boundary reports appear.

Lord Hanningfield: That was my point. By the time the referendum is held, the work will have been done. Therefore, the figure might be approximate but it could be estimated to the next £10 million. A figure will be available by the time we reach the referendum of what the local government reorganisation might cost. That was the point. I accept it is not available now, but it will be after a year's work and before the electorate vote. Therefore, that figure should be made available to the electorate at that stage, as well as the potential costs associated with running the regional assembly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I was about to say that later on we shall publish a full summary of our proposals, including costings for elected regional assemblies before any referendum to ensure that voters are well informed. Throughout the debate we have made the point that we are determined to give the electorate as much information as possible so that they can not only make an informed decision but will know—to use the vernacular—what they are letting themselves in for on a costs basis.
	I was asked about assembly buildings. We do not want massive new buildings throughout the regions. We very much hope that where regional assemblies are wanted by the electorate they will be able to house themselves in existing buildings.

The Earl of Onslow: In his forecasts of the costs of regional assemblies will the noble Lord attach a footnote which states that all costs since the rebuilding of this Palace in the 1840s to the building of the Scottish regional assembly have gone at least four times over estimate?

Baroness Blatch: In response to my noble friend's question about buildings, we were told that London, Wales and Scotland would not have large buildings. There was nothing in those Acts of Parliament to say, "Thou shalt not build large monuments to yourselves". Therefore, what guarantee can the noble Lord as a Minister of the Government give us that none of these regions will build a new building? I do not think it is possible for the noble Lord to give that assurance across the Dispatch Box.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is not our plan that there should be new regional buildings. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said right at the beginning, and I repeat half his mantra: "There is no new money". Regional assemblies will not be able to afford to build brand new buildings, as happened in Scotland and Wales.

Lord Waddington: The Minister used the word "hope": he hoped that they would accommodate themselves in existing buildings. Is that the end of the matter? Can they divert existing funds into new buildings, rather than use them for worthwhile purposes? What powers do the Government have or will they take to prevent abuses such as have already occurred in places such as London? It is an abuse that authorities should use our money, the council tax payers' money, on bricks and mortar when they should be using it on services.

Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry, but I cannot stand it any longer. I declare an interest as a Member of the Greater London Assembly. I have several points to make, but shall endeavour to restrict them. The building occupied by the Greater London Authority was commissioned by central government. One may have plenty of complaints about that, but as a matter of fact, it was not commissioned by the mayor or the assembly and it came in within budget.
	We have not seen the legislation regarding finance, but we have heard the phrase, "No new money". The chances must be that the finance regime for regional assemblies will be that of or close to that of local government. All of us with experience of spending funds locally will be accustomed to ring-fencing, now ear-marking, and so on of the funds made available. As the regional assemblies will not have tax-raising powers, the chance of them having the dosh to build monuments to themselves, even if they wanted to, is remote.
	But if the regional assemblies are to do a good job of undertaking strategic government, they do not need iconic, massive, grand, glorious buildings, but they need offices that are fit for purpose to enable the delivery of good regional government.

Baroness Blatch: On the point made by the noble Baroness—that regional assemblies will not have tax-raising powers—I have reread carefully what Mr Raynsford said in another place, and they will have precepting powers. I pay rates, council tax, in London. My council tax has risen phenomenally under the Greater London Authority. My rate demand for the coming year has risen by just over 29 per cent. What is to stop regional assemblies using precepting powers to build large buildings?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My noble friend Lord Rooker, who is sitting behind me, says, "common sense".
	To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, it would be politically unwise for a regional assembly to move moneys from services into a new building. Of course that could happen, but in a world of sensible decision-making, it is unlikely that the regional assembly in the North East, North West, Cornwall, or wherever, would say, "What we need as a sort of virility symbol is a brand-new building. We shall raid social services for the money to build it". I simply do not believe that that will happen.
	We must return to the amendment. It says nothing about the cost of reorganisation. It is all about the cost of running the assembly. With all due respect, the amendment does not achieve the laudable aim of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.

Lord Hanningfield: I must repeat where we stand on the amendment. The amendment covers both the cost of managing the regional assembly and the cost of reorganising local government. We have just discussed the cost of running the regional assembly. There will obviously be costs. There are no buildings at present; most assemblies are peripatetic—they move around and operate from offices in different places—and would have to have some buildings. Whatever they are, they will cost.
	But the big expense, from which we seem to have moved away, is the cost of reorganisation. Even in the North East, which comprises Durham and Northumberland, that will amount to tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. Such costs must be known to the public at the time.
	The Minister said that information would be issued at the time of the referendum. That would be after reorganisation had been considered, so information about the cost would then be available. Will the Minister clarify whether the information issued by the Government or whoever at the time of the referendum would contain figures as well as details of what the assembly would do—a matter to which we shall return later? That has not been clarified.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As I mentioned a moment ago, one of the Government's themes throughout our three-day debate has been that we are anxious to give the electorate as much information as possible. I hope that many people will be consulted about the information and will have the opportunity to have an input. One piece of information will be the costs about which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is asking.
	I cannot at present say what will be the detailed costs, but I can give the noble Lord an undertaking that part of the package of proposals—which, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, will go through the letterbox of everyone throughout the land—will be figures addressing the issue of local government reorganisation raised by the noble Lord in his speech. The noble Lord must understand that at present we can say nothing about the matter prior to a boundary report, so I hope that he will be satisfied with my undertaking and withdraw the amendment.

Lord Waddington: I thank the Minister for giving way again. In his reply to me, was he not saying no more than that on this occasion hope will triumph over experience? We know that public funds have been used to build grandiose structures to house representatives. Is there no hope on this occasion of the Government taking powers to prevent such abuse? That was the burden of my question.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The answer to that specific question, with which I have sympathy, is that none of us on either side of the House would want great edifices built in whatever part of the land. If I may, I shall take that specific point away and return later with a considered view on it.

Baroness Hanham: The Minister has made some fundamental commitments. I should like to be sure what we have. Throughout our discussion during the first and second day of Committee, we have been trying to ensure that information will be made available. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has from time to time said that certain information will be made available, but the fact is that if we had not started to pick at the matter, we should have had no idea about what information was or was not to be provided in the booklet.
	Can the Minister assure me that the various matters that we have raised will be included in the consultation booklet? That might save us a bit of time. We now know that the costs of reorganisation and of running a regional assembly will be included in information given to electors before they vote in a referendum. Is that correct?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I repeat that we shall provide a great deal of information to the electorate. That proposal has not just popped up out of the blue—my noble friend Lord Rooker has said over the past three days that every elector would receive an information booklet through the door. I have given an undertaking that the pack will include information on the running cost of the assemblies. I cannot go further than that; it would be foolhardy of me to do so. In the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has no idea what those costs will be, I do not know either. Noble Lords are on the verge of questioning my good will in what I say to them. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord seems to have confused the question. We are asking for information to be given to your Lordships' House now or at a later stage. I, for one, am in no way reassured by the noble Lord's undertaking that masses of information will pour through everyone's letterbox. Most people do not value much of the information that comes through their letterbox. We seek information in your Lordships' House as soon as possible.

The Earl of Onslow: I wish to comment on that important point. The noble Lord sounds reasonable, but he is waffling. He is not answering very simple questions: whether or not certain things will happen, yes or no. Some of us on this side of the Committee who think that the scheme is pretty crazy anyway are at least, I hope, open to conversion. When we get such waffle from the noble Lord about what is happening, it raises our suspicions. He seems not to know the answers to our questions, and, as a Minister of the Crown, he should do.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I know when I am waffling; I do not feel that I am doing so now. I am giving the Committee as much information as I can at present. I emphasise once more that we recognise that the cost of running the assemblies is a significant matter. The pack will give voters as much information as possible about the running costs of the assemblies. I cannot go further than that.
	I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, picked up the earlier point of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that, apart from the running costs, his primary interest was the cost of local government reorganisation running up to regional assemblies or their establishment. I thought that noble Lords accepted my point that we cannot begin to approach those figures until we know the results reached by the Boundary Commission. Once we have them, we will do our best to construct the figures that everyone in this House wants.

Lord Hanningfield: We had many questions, to which the Government tried to give some answers. We have had an interesting debate on the amendment. We must accept that some of the figures that we seek are not available now. Our point is that they must be available over the next year before any referendum. We need to know the costs of running the regional assemblies, possible building and setting-up costs, and, particularly, the costs of local government reorganisation, which will dwarf any regional assembly running costs. It is estimated that the reorganisation of local government in England—I accept that the noble Lord will say that it will involve only one area to start with—involving a mixture of reorganisation to create one tier, will be over £2 billion. Unless the Government made available extra money, that amount would have to come out of funds for services such as provision for the elderly and schools. Such figures must be clarified.
	I hope that the Government will indicate further where we will go in later stages. Report stage is coming up. I hope that the Minister can indicate more clearly how the Government will inform the public and what information they will give them. We will have to look again at the question to be put to the public in a referendum. I am sure that we will return to all those subjects over the next few weeks. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Entitlement to vote]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 2, line 38, after "vote" insert "in response to question 1, under section 2,"

Lord Hanningfield: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49. Amendment No. 48 is not very applicable because it relates to Amendment No. 26. These amendments would clarify who votes in the referendums. We feel strongly that this is a constitutional issue; therefore, the electorate voting on whether there should be a regional assembly should be that which votes in a parliamentary election. It is an odd thing for a Member of the House of Lords to say because it excludes us from voting in the referendum—rather like turkeys voting for Christmas. But, as I said several times, we are establishing constitutional change in England, which should be decided by those who decide on Parliament.
	We tabled Amendment No. 48 because, if we were successful in getting a dual question comprising a question on a regional assembly and one on the reorganisation of local government, the people who vote on the local government component should be those who vote in local government elections.
	On Amendment No. 49, Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State enormous powers to override the electoral register. Why is the Secretary of State taking so much power to disregard alterations to the register of electors? That could mean that the Secretary of State could refer back to an earlier register for the purposes of the referendum, which might enable people who had moved elsewhere to vote. We tabled Amendment No. 49 to understand why the Secretary of State wants to take such enormous powers. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to answer the noble Lord's perfectly reasonable questions. Clause 3 sets out the franchise of those entitled to vote in a referendum on the establishment of an elected assembly. The basic rule is that the person entitled to vote from the date of the referendum is entitled to vote at a local government election for any area within the region concerned. That can be modified. Amendment No. 45 would replace that provision with the parliamentary franchise.
	Noble Lords are talking up the situation and claiming that great constitutional change is occurring in the country. It is a technical adjustment of democratic accountability and scrutiny.

A noble Lord: Oh!

Lord Rooker: Oh, yes, yes. Let me put it this way: the changes are not as important as setting up the Scottish Parliament with primary legislation powers or establishing the National Assembly for Wales with secondary powers. Yet the local government franchise, not the parliamentary franchise, was used for those bodies. There could be no more massive constitutional change than the devolution of primary legislative powers from Westminster to Edinburgh, yet the local government franchise applied in that case. Let us not talk it up way beyond what it is and make a mountain out of a molehill.
	It is important that Members of your Lordships' House should participate in the elections. I cannot see why the Committee would rule out allowing Members of your Lordships' House to vote in an English regional referendum, even though it was OK for them to vote in the referendums in Scotland and Wales and in the elections to the Greater London Assembly. We should maintain a degree of consistency.
	I have some sympathy with the reasoning behind Amendment No. 46. However, as I said, there should be a common approach to all sub-national referendums, which is what, effectively, a regional referendum is. In local government and parliamentary elections, we recognise that those who are resident in a place have, to a greater or lesser degree, an interest in and an attachment to the area that is worthy of representation. Those who have a residence in a region, even if it is a second home, will still have an interest in how the region is run.
	Amendment No. 48 suggests that only people living in two-tier areas should be able to vote for a future local government structure. I have already made it clear that we do not believe in a separate question on local government restructuring. It would not be useful to go down that road again. Amendment No. 44 is consequential.
	Amendment No. 49 has a degree of substance, so I shall give a slightly longer explanation. As we said, Clause 3 sets out the entitlement. It is intended that the franchise will be the same as for local government elections. Amendment No. 49 would remove subsections (2) and (3). There is no sinister motive underlying those subsections. They are there so that the basic rule in Clause 3(1) can be made to correspond to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, in particular, Section 13B. Those provisions require certain alterations to the register of local government electors to be ignored after the final nomination day for the purpose of a local government election. The section also covers other elections but not referendums. The final nomination day is the last day on which nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer for the purpose of the election. For local government elections, that is the 19th day before the day of the election, according to election rules.
	I shall give an example that shows why we need subsections (2) and (3). Without those subsections, there would be no mechanism for setting a cut-off date for registration for referendums, which is administratively necessary. Furthermore, there might be a combination of a referendum with a local government election. In that situation, it is sensible that there should be no disparity between those who can vote in the referendum and those who can vote in the local government election. Otherwise, running a combined poll would be a problem.
	Subsections (2) and (3) also have precedents. For example, there is similar provision in Sections 3(2) and 4(2) of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998 and Section 45 of the Local Government Act 2000. The Committee will be aware that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform did not comment adversely on the provisions. I assure the Committee that the procedure for making such regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.

The Earl of Onslow: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not press the amendment. This is a serious constitutional issue—I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on that point—and it could be argued that only Members of your Lordships' House should be allowed to vote on the issue and not anybody else.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Hear, hear.

The Earl of Onslow: However, as that is probably not going to happen, in spite of the vocal approval expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, from the Government Front Bench, I hope that we will all be allowed to vote. After all, voting early and voting often is a good idea. There is nothing wrong with that. We should trust the people, including your Lordships.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I cannot resist the temptation to get to my feet again. I have great respect for the noble Lord, but he takes advantage of slower-moving older people such as myself. He said that we should not talk it up into a big constitutional issue, but I should be delighted to hear him do a thorough job of talking the issue down into an unimportant, mundane non-constitutional issue.
	At the moment, I am so misguided as to fear far-reaching consequences. I would be grateful to the noble Lord if he could dislodge my suspicions. Those are firmly implanted, having been well sown by my noble friend Lady Blatch—I could wish for no greater authority—and by my noble friend Lord Waddington, who, with his considerable eloquence and experience, has gone a long way to convince me that it is not as simple an issue as the noble Lord would have me believe.

Baroness Blatch: The Minister was provocative in telling us that it is not a constitutional issue and that those of us who think it is are wrong. We are in good company on the issue. The Select Committee on the Constitution said:
	"We considered that the bill raised significant constitutional issues which we wish to explore further".
	It also referred to certain areas of concern:
	"the asymmetrical model of regional government which the bill implies...; the proposal to hold referendums at different times in different regions; the criteria which would have to be met to trigger a referendum in a particular region; public participation in consultation, and the provision of information to voters before a referendum; the lack of a turnout threshold in any referendum; the potential for changing boundaries and the independence and powers of the Boundary Committee; and the funding of Regional Assemblies and their independence from central government".
	The committee recommended:
	"We draw these matters to the attention of the House as raising questions of principle about principal parts of the constitution".
	If that is not a good recommendation from the Select Committee, I do not know what is.
	The integrity of England as a country is at stake. The integrity of Scotland is intact because Scotland has its own Parliament. Wales has its own Assembly. We have already started to break up England by establishing London government. Almost certainly, we will lose our historic counties because of the regional assemblies, and there is a real constitutional issue in the Bill.
	As I said, when the Bill is passed by Parliament it will trigger a great deal of executive action, none of which needs to be approved by Parliament. The implications for the future of England in the United Kingdom as a whole makes the time that we spend on the Bill very important.

Lord Rooker: I do not disagree with that last point. The time spent on the Bill is useful. I do not wish to burden the House by going back to the Select Committee report to which I referred last week. However, as far as I am aware, we can satisfy the Committee on the issues that are raised.
	If there were a major issue about the franchise, it would have been dealt with when the Scottish Parliament, the Greater London Authority and the Welsh Assembly were set up. I cannot accept that the Bill is of major constitutional importance in the sense that that phrase has been used in the past three days. The precedent is there in the other bodies. I have already said that, whatever anyone might claim for them, the English regional assemblies will not be as important in the constitutional framework as the bodies in Scotland and Wales, which pass secondary and primary legislation.
	I have said, "No new money. No new powers. No new tier of government". The Bill is a technical adjustment, a reform of democratic accountability. It will not destroy England or obliterate it, which is the preposterous claim made by the Opposition. Nothing could be further from the purpose of the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for those replies. The Government can take it that there is much unease—particularly about the way the questions will be answered. There is a theme running through all the amendments about the question that is asked, and who votes for it. I am sure that we will come back to these issues at Report and later stages.
	I wish to go back to subsection (2) of my Amendment No. 49. The Minister gave a detailed explanation of why that was there. It still gives the Secretary of State enormous powers—not just for these referendums, but for other ways of disregarding electoral registers. Although he gave a detailed explanation, which we shall see when it is written up, I am sure that we shall want to look at it again. I do not see why the Secretary of State should have such wide powers which would apply to other elections. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

European Council: Iraq

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, the House now having resumed, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place earlier this afternoon.
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which I attended in Brussels on 20th and 21st March; and report on the conflict in Iraq.
	"This meeting was the fourth of the special summits on economic reform in the European Union. But, of course, the summit was dominated by Iraq.
	"I should like to place on record what I know will be the heartfelt gratitude of the entire House for the valour of British servicemen and women. "I send the deepest sympathy of the Government and the whole House to the families of those who have died. They gave their lives for our safety. They had the courage to take the ultimate risk in the service of their country, and of those who value freedom everywhere in the world. We owe them an immense debt.
	"I would also like to extend my condolences and those of our nation to the families of the American personnel who have sadly been lost in recent days.
	"We are now just four days into this conflict. It is worth restating our central objectives. They are to remove Saddam Hussein from power and ensure Iraq is disarmed of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. But in achieving these objectives, we have also embraced other considerations. We want to do this campaign in a way that minimises the suffering of ordinary Iraqi people, brutalised by Saddam; to safeguard the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of the people; and to make this a war not of conquest, but of liberation.
	"For that reason, we did not, as some expected, mount a heavy bombing campaign first, followed by a land campaign. Instead, land forces were immediately in action, securing oil installations, gaining strategic assets and retaining them, not destroying them. The air campaign has been precisely targeted. Of course there will have been civilian casualties. But we have done all we humanly can, to keep them to a minimum. Water and electricity supplies are being spared. The targets are the infrastructure, command and control of Saddam's regime not of the civilian population. And we are making massive efforts to clear lines of supply for humanitarian aid, though the presence of mines is hindering us.
	"By contrast, the nature of Saddam's regime is all too plainly expressed in its actions. The oil wealth was mined, and deep-mined at that. Had we not struck quickly, Iraq's future wealth would even now be burning away. Prisoners are being paraded in defiance of all international conventions. Those who dare speak criticism of the regime are being executed.
	"Let me now give the House some detail of the military campaign.
	"In the south, our aim was to secure the key oil installations on the Al Fawr peninsula; to take the port of Umm Qasr, the only Iraqi port to the outside world; and to render Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, ineffective as a base for military operations by Saddam against coalition troops. In the West, in the desert, our aim is to prevent Saddam from using it as a base for hostile external aggression. In the north, our objective is to protect people in the Kurdish autonomous zone, to secure the northern oil fields and to ensure the north cannot provide a base for Saddam's resistance.
	"Then, the vital goal is to reach Baghdad as swiftly as possible, thus bringing the end of the regime closer.
	"There is a limit to how much I can say about the detail of our operations, especially those involving Special Forces, as I am sure the House understands. But, with that caveat, at present, the British and US troops have taken the Al Fawr peninsula. That is now secure. The southern oil installations are under coalition control. The port of Umm Qasr, despite continuing pockets of resistance, is under allied control; but the waterway essential for humanitarian aid may be blocked by mines and will take some days to sweep. Basra is surrounded and cannot be used as an Iraqi base. But in Basra there are pockets of Saddam's most fiercely loyal security services, who are holding out. They are contained but still able to inflict casualties on our troops and so we are proceeding with caution. Basra international airport has been made secure. The western desert is largely secure. In the north, there have been air attacks on regime targets in Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit. We have been in constant contact with the Turkish Government and the Kurdish authorities to urge calm.
	"Meanwhile, coalition forces led by the American 5th Corps are on the way to Baghdad. As we speak, they are about 60 miles south of Baghdad near Karbala. It is a little way from there that they will encounter the Medina division of the Republican Guard who are defending the route to Baghdad. This will be a crucial moment.
	"Coalition forces are also advancing on Al Kut, in the east of Iraq. The two main bridges over the Euphrates, south of Baghdad, have been taken intact. This is of critical significance.
	"The air campaign has attacked Iraqi military installations, the centres of Saddam's regime and command and control centres. A total of over 5,000 sorties has taken place.
	"Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered. Still more have simply left the field, their units disintegrating. But there are those, closest to Saddam, that are resisting and will resist strongly. They are the elite that are hated by the local population and have little to lose. There are bound, therefore, to be difficult days ahead, but the strategy and its timing are proceeding according to plan.
	"At the European Council, there were of course deep divisions over the coalition action. That is well known. But it is not that all of European opinion is one way. On the contrary, there was both understanding and support for the British position from many nations represented at the Council, and near unanimous endorsement from the 10 accession countries who joined our Council on Friday afternoon. In any event, whatever disagreements about the conflict itself, Europe came together to set out clearly its wishes and responsibilities in post-conflict Iraq.
	"The Council agreed the need to be active in the humanitarian field, to ensure that the oil revenues are held for the Iraqi people by the UN and that the Oil for Food programme continues.
	"The Council further agreed that the UN Security Council should give the UN a strong mandate for post-conflict Iraq and make sure that the new administration is one that is representative, careful of the human rights of the Iraqi people and allows the people to live at peace inside Iraq and with its neighbours.
	"In addition, the Council stressed the vital importance of the Middle East peace process and the publication of the road map drawn up by the US, EU, Russia and the UN, and now endorsed by us all. I reported on the talks we had had, both with the US Administration and the Palestinian Authority. I welcomed the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian Prime Minister. I also welcomed the US intention to publish the road map for peace as soon as the Prime Minister and his government are in place.
	"I know it seems out of place, but I should say one word on the conventional subject matter of the summit. Though overshadowed by Iraq, this summit on economic reform regained some momentum. In the last few months, energy liberalisation, a single Europe-wide patent and a single Europe sky policy have all been agreed. An employment taskforce, due to report on ways to cut unemployment without generating new regulation, was agreed. This marks progress, though much remains to be done.
	"To return to the conflict, there are, of course, difficulties that have arisen, tragedies and accidents. We grieve for lives lost. That is in the nature of war. And it is in the nature of today's instant, live reporting of war, that people see the pain and blood in vivid and shocking terms. But it is worth recalling the nature of what is not always apparent, what we do not see: a nation, degraded and brutalised by decades of barbarous rule, a country that is potentially rich but whose people go hungry and whose children die needlessly from malnutrition and disease; and a regime to whom repression, torture, the abuse of human rights and the possession of weapons of mass destruction define their very nature. "That is why we must achieve our objectives. Saddam will go; this regime will be replaced. The Iraqi people will be helped to a better future. The weapons of mass destruction, for which a peaceful Iraq has no use, will be eliminated. That we will encounter more difficult and anxious moments in the days ahead is certain. But no less certain—indeed, more so—is coalition victory".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. No one can underestimate the gravity of the present situation. I want to associate this side of the House unreservedly with the remarks that the Prime Minister has made about the conduct of our troops and about their courage and their skill.
	Everyone in this House will be immensely proud of them and of all the coalition servicemen. Every time I hear reports in the media—too many, perhaps, for my taste—about the difficulties and failures of the campaign so far, I marvel at the outstanding scale of their progress.
	War is an evil, dirty and dangerous business and no one ever pretended that it would be easy. No one ever believed it would be fought without serious loss. That has been tragically underlined in the past few days and we will no doubt face stiff tests of our resolve ahead. Will the noble and learned Lord take to the families of those who have been killed, injured or captured in this campaign this House's deepest sympathy, appreciation and concern? Our resolve must be to ensure that the cause for which those brave young people sacrificed all goes on to prevail.
	I must also record our condolences for the families of the journalists and others who have died. The death of Terry Lloyd brought back to television screens film he shot when he was the first man into Halabja after Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the people of that town. Nothing could more eloquently underscore the bestial nature of the Saddam regime. Amidst all the heartrending shots of the casualties of war that the Iraqi Ministry of Information allows us to see, nothing must dim our grasp of that central reality.
	Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the degrading treatment of coalition prisoners was a clear breach of the Geneva Convention and yet more proof of the nature of Saddam's regime? Will he assure the House that those who mistreat captured personnel will be brought to justice? On this subject, can he give the House any word on the fate of missing British personnel?
	I do not wish to dwell on the conduct of the campaign. However, I repeat that we on this side have no doubt of the justice of the war and we respect the tremendous efforts being made by the coalition to avoid the loss of civilian life.
	I want to ask three brief questions. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the tragic loss of an RAF Tornado to friendly fire has been fully investigated and that those problems are now being successfully dealt with? Can he say something of the extent to which Iraqi regular forces are adopting civilian clothes and hiding in civilian areas as part of their overall strategy? And can he give us the latest information he has about the deployment of Turkish troops in northern Iraq?
	Turning to humanitarian aid, one consequence of the bold strategy being pursued by the coalition is that large cities are being left neutralised, but not occupied, behind coalition lines. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this presents new humanitarian challenges? Do the Government have plans to create humanitarian corridors to these cities or would the Red Crescent be allowed to cross coalition lines? What threat would be presented to that by Iraqi irregulars?
	What is the current status of the Oil-for-Food programme? Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it has been suspended? Can he say something of the coalition plans to open oil supplies again in the light of the continuing attempts by Saddam's forces to destroy oil installations? And what is the current state of the seaway to Umm Qasr? The Statement indicated that it was being cleared of mines, but when is it estimated that the first ships will come into port with humanitarian aid?
	The whole House will be aware of the dreadful levels of malnutrition among the Iraqi people. Is it not further evidence of the brutality and cynicism of Saddam that part of his survival strategy is to disrupt the flow of humanitarian aid to his own long-suffering people?
	There are now serious concerns about the condition of people living in the city of Basra. What steps can be taken to put this right? Could the noble and learned Lord tell the House how soon aid can be deployed in Iraq and who will be in charge of the delivery?
	Against the background of these immense events, to spend much time on what was clearly a depressing and disappointing EU summit would be inappropriate. But does he share my disappointment that there was no shred of condemnation of the Saddam regime or any understanding of the justification for this war in 20 pages of presidency conclusions?
	The Prime Minister again signed up in Brussels to words about the need to strengthen the capacity of the EU in the realms of common foreign and defence policies. Is there no recognition at all of how the present crisis has changed things—probably for good? Is no reassessment under way inside government about the reality of EU common defence and foreign policy ambitions? If not, I suggest it is high time that there should be.
	Finally, can the noble and learned Lord confirm the latest position of the IGC on the Convention on the Future of Europe? When will that take place? Has it been delayed? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us anything about the status of this important constitutional issue?
	In conclusion, I again underline the full confidence we have in the prosecution of the war by our Armed Forces. War is the last time in which to accentuate the negative, particularly when so much success has already been achieved.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. We are grateful for the efforts being made to keep Parliament fully informed and appreciate that it puts yet another burden on heavily burdened Ministers.
	I share with the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Opposition a great sense of our grief for those who have been lost in battle and in particular for those who are missing because that puts a terrible strain on their families. Each loss is a tragedy for the family concerned and we, too, echo the hope that the Leader of the House will make known to the families concerned how great is the sympathy and feeling from all parts of Parliament about the losses.
	We also share the concern about the loss of American lives and hope that the prisoners of war will be restored in good health, having been properly treated according to the Geneva Convention. Perhaps I may also put on record our deep sympathy for the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives, or whose children or loved ones have done so in the course of the conflict.
	With regard to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the Patriot missile, I do not want to pursue the matter far because I understand the sensitivities, but I want to ask one question. I understand that it is relatively easy to distinguish between a missile and an aeroplane because of the high speed of the former compared with the latter. Given that there are no Iraqi planes at all in the air over any part of Iraq, perhaps we can be assured that the matter will be looked into. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give the House some idea of when he hopes to be able to report that investigation and the steps taken to ensure that such incidents never happen again in the course of the conflict.
	I turn to the difficult situation in Basra. Clearly, there was hope in some quarters that Basra would prove to be a relatively soft target and that there would be a strong response from people who have long defied, and greatly disliked, the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is obvious that there must be some strengthening troops in that city.
	As to the humanitarian situation, it is very good news that emergency repairs have been undertaken to the water system, which had effectively been cut off. I understand that the electricity system has also been cut off. Has the ICRC been able to get into the city? Are there any reports on the humanitarian situation?
	Given the statement made by President Bush yesterday that food aid would be reaching Basra within 36 hours of his return from Camp David—which means by tonight—what steps are being taken to get emergency supplies into the city? We appreciate that it is an extremely difficult situation with quite fierce battles still going on in Basra—we do not wish to ask for the impossible—but we hope that President Bush's promise will be kept.
	Another particularly troubling situation is emerging on which the noble and learned Lord may be able to shed a little illumination. Again, we will fully understand if he cannot. There has been a conflict of information about the position of Turkish troops in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq. On the one side, Prime Minister Erdogan said yesterday that substantial numbers of Turkish troops will be going into that area—I believe that he mentioned the figure of 40,000—and that this action had been agreed by the United States. Shortly afterwards there was a statement to the effect that there were some 3,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq who had been there for many years; it is not a new deployment. Clearly, if the Turks believe that they can rapidly deploy more troops into northern Iraq and are claiming that the United States Government have agreed to that, and if the Kurds are, at the same time, expressing deep concern about any such deployment, we could face a difficult situation in northern Iraq. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what is the truth—if, indeed, it can be determined by anyone?
	I have two further questions, both of which refer to difficult problems. The first question relates to humanitarian aid—which is likely to be on a very large scale—at the point at which, please God, the war ends. The United States has said that the oil revenues from Iraq will be used partly for the reconstruction of Iraq. At the same time, it has been made clear by the European summit that it would hope to see the Oil for Food programme continue and that it perceives the relief of the people of Iraq being met from that source. We now understand that at least 1 billion US dollars-worth of contracts are being currently let by USAID exclusively to American firms and that they have been told that another 50 billion US dollars-worth of contracts will emerge gradually as the reconstruction of Iraq continues.
	None of this would be disturbing if there were some agreement—or some understanding that there would be an agreement—on how the issue of the administration of Iraq is to be dealt with. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has pressed very hard for a United Nations element in the civil administration of Iraq after, it is to be hoped, a victory is achieved, whereas, at the same time, the United States has made it plain that that administration would be entirely under American command. It would appear that a difficult situation is coming down the track.
	I understand also that the World Bank, the IMF and other major sources of funding can operate only under a UN mandate and not under a unilateral or bilateral national mandate.
	Finally, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about the road map. All noble Lords will appreciate the Prime Minister's efforts to get an effective agreement on a road map and wish him all possible success. There are many problems but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer a question which does not immediately affect the war. What amendments to the road map will be permissible and will there be a deadline after which no further amendments can be lodged? I understand that already many amendments have been lodged and that there is a danger that we might see incremental conditions being set by either side. This would simply mean the whole purpose and motivation of the road map being undermined by a series of detailed attempts by the two sides to strengthen it in their favour.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for what they said about sending the sympathies of the whole House to those who have suffered in the way described.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a very good point about journalists. We frequently criticise journalists for their occasional undoubted deficiencies, but we cannot have a free society without a free press. The journalists and their colleagues were unarmed, in danger, and we all owe them a debt of civilisation, if I may put it that way.
	The noble Lord is right—the degrading treatment of the prisoners of war is an undoubted breach of the Geneva Convention. Those responsible are guilty of criminal offences.
	I can tell the House nothing about missing United Kingdom personnel. I have approached the issue in a cautious way because it is very easy with raw, unrefined intelligence to give misleading information. That would be a disservice to the House and an unnecessary cruelty to those who have deep concerns and worries.
	Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Tornado. The facts, as I have them, are that on 23rd March a Tornado GR4 was returning from an operational mission when it was engaged near the border with Kuwait by a Patriot missile battery. An investigation is under way. The MoD will provide further information when it is available. I am not able to put a timescale on that. Your Lordships would not expect me to.
	The aircraft was fitted with a combat identification capability, part of which would have been the latest friend-or-foe transponder identification, which would have been tested prior to take-off and during flight. Other than that, I have no further details that I can share with your Lordships.
	Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about Turkish troops in northern Iraq. We are absolutely committed as a Government to Iraq's territorial integrity. We are in close contact with the Turkish authorities and the Kurds in northern Iraq. One has to remember that the Turks have been helpful in the past because they have allowed aircraft which have been patrolling the northern no-fly zone—for some years now, let it not be overlooked—to use their bases. That degree of commitment to protecting the Kurds in the north from the regime in Baghdad is well recorded. We have called upon all concerned to do nothing to raise the temperature in that difficult situation. I cannot tell the noble Baroness the numbers because there are conflicting reports. As I have said, I prefer to be cautious.
	I was asked about the Oil for Food programme. The noble Baroness is right—a new resolution would be needed to give the Secretary-General of the United Nations authority to continue to operate the programme. We hope that a new resolution will be passed soon.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is also right—the Oil for Food programme continues while the Government of Iraq remain in place. However, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has confirmed that he has withdrawn all his staff, so effectively—I take the noble Lord's point—Oil for Food has been suspended.
	The noble Lord is also right to refer to new humanitarian challenges. I can give a little detail about what DfID is doing. Population movements in northern Iraq are of an unconfirmed 300,000 to 450,000 people. They are being absorbed mainly into local communities. There are few refugees confirmed at Iraq's borders but we are making preparations for camps. Water supplies to Basra were cut off for approximately 24 hours. They have been partially restored by Red Cross/Red Crescent teams.
	DfID had deployed five humanitarian and civil/military advisers to Kuwait, one to Tehran, one to Amman. There will be a liaison officer from DfID at the humanitarian information centre in Cyprus from today. The Red Cross/Red Crescent movement released Iraq appeals on 20th March totalling 159 million dollars. My right honourable friend Clare Short was in New York and Washington on 19th and 20th of this month underlining the importance, which I know your Lordships endorse, of a swift Security Council agreement on allowing the Secretary-General to take over authority for the Oil-for-Food programme. DfID has emergency health kits for 300,000 people for three months. There is a strongly co-ordinated effort on the lines referred to in the questions put.
	As to the sea route into Umm Qasr, in the nature of things the sweep and the de-mining will take a few days. I cannot be more precise than that. I do not think anyone could reasonably expect that to be so.
	The European summit was mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde expressed his disappointment that there was no detailed reference to Iraq. There are references, however, on page 31 of the Presidency Conclusions:
	"The EU is committed to the territorial integrity, the sovereignty, the political stability and the full and effective disarmament of Iraq in all its territory, as well as to the respect for the rights of the Iraqi people, including all persons belonging to minorities".
	There are other paragraphs about Iraq on the same page.
	The final question put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, related to the IGC. He wanted me to put forward a timetable. He will be amazed to know that I shall tell him that it has still not been decided. It is an extremely important question. It is my belief that we are looking at next year.
	I think that I have dealt with all the general questions put. I have no further details on the contracts let by USAID. I have read reports. Many are internally self-contradictory. I am not sure that I should benefit the House by making any assertions of which I am not reasonably certain in my own mind.
	Finally, the noble Baroness raised a specific question in relation to the MEPP and the road map—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been concerned about the matter. The question was: when will the road map be published? The answer is: as soon as possible after confirmation of the new Prime Minister in government. We want the road map to be published in those circumstances. As to what amendments to it are permissible, I have no answer other than that all parties will want to study it with great care. The noble Baroness's underlying point was that the dynamic behind that process—in which Her Majesty's Government have been extremely influential—is critically, centrally important. It will be a real and continuing tragedy for that part of the world, indeed for all of us, if we do not pursue that road map vigorously following the clear policy of Her Majesty's Government, which remains: two independent states able to live peacefully one with another.

Lord Richard: My Lords, whatever one's views might have been on the wisdom of this war—the House may know that I have expressed those views—now that the war has started, it is incumbent on those of us who had those doubts to refrain from doing or saying anything which will inhibit our Armed Forces in the exercise of the duties imposed on them by the Government. Therefore, I propose to say nothing whatever about the conduct of the war save that, to a layman, it seems to have been reasonably successful so far.
	In giving his account of the European Union summit, my noble and learned friend said that there was a generally expressed view in favour of a strong United Nations presence in the administration of Iraq after the war. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pressed that point and I want to reinforce it. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the UN should run the country and be the civil administration of the country in the period of reorganisation immediately after the war has ended? If it is, I assume that that is now the policy of the EU collectively, including the French. As the noble Baroness indicated, it raises the question: what is the view of the United States Administration on this? The prospect of Iraq being turned into a satrapy of the United States of America, run by a military viceroy, is not one that I personally should find very attractive. The extent of UN involvement in the civil administration after the war is crucial. I should be grateful if my noble friend would expand on this matter.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone and content of my noble friend's remarks. Paragraph 67, on page 31, of the Presidency Conclusions, states:
	"We believe that the UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis. The UN system has a unique capacity and practical experience in coordinating assistance in post-conflict States. The Security Council should give the United Nations a strong mandate for this mission".
	We absolutely agree. A UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort and—this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with which I omitted to deal—it will be necessary to make possible the engagement of the international financial institutions and the wider international community.
	We are prominent in the effort to ensure that a suitable United Nations mandate is put in place and are holding regular discussions with key partners to achieve that. I underline that our objective is, therefore, to get Security Council authorisation or an endorsement for an international presence which will include the United Nations, not a UN operation as such.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving prior permission for questions to be put relating to Clare Short's Statement in another place on humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Iraq—a Statement which is not to be repeated in this House.
	First, on the humanitarian situation, can the Minister say how quickly a new UN resolution on food aid can be secured? Is it a matter of days, or weeks?
	Secondly, what progress is being made to secure a wider UN resolution on the general post-war reconstruction of Iraq? The fact that the Americans are giving out contracts to companies hardly inspires confidence. The Secretary of State referred in her Statement to:
	"the need to heal rifts in the international community if this resolution is to be procured".
	What information can the Minister give the House?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If her original introductory remark was slightly coded, perhaps I should tell the House that there was the possibility of taking both Statements in this place. It was decided—I hope to your Lordships' satisfaction—that I would feel able to go wider than the Prime Minister's Statement to deal with questions about humanitarian matters of which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness were courteous enough to give me notice so that I could give the House as much information as I have.
	I cannot say when the humanitarian resolution is likely to be brought about. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can. We obviously want it sooner rather than later. I am in the same position regarding the wider resolution. I respectfully remind your Lordships that this is still very early days; we have had only four days of conflict. It is sometimes slightly premature to say what will happen after the conflict comes to an end. We do not know when it will end, or in what circumstances. We all hope that it will end very early, but it is difficult for me to speculate about precise timetables when none of us knows how long the conflict will last or the circumstances of its termination.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for addressing some of our humanitarian concerns. Our anxieties follow on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, regarding the humanitarian contingency and the reluctance of the United Nations to become involved. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us to what extent the Prime Minister attributes this to the continuing intransigence of the French, or is it due to the loss of confidence by the US Administration in the capacity of the UN to perform its role?
	In the absence of a UN lead in the co-ordinating of the humanitarian relief effort and plans for post-conflict Iraq, who will take the lead, given the understandable reluctance of aid agencies to work under the command of military forces? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that the uncertainty over the role of the United Nations may hamper long-term relief efforts?
	Following upon what the Lord Privy Seal said about the predicted refugee exodus from Iraq, I have seen reports that the Kurds are fleeing towns in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq and heading north. I think that all Members would agree that any large-scale population movement in this geopolitical tinderbox could have devastating humanitarian consequences. Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that there is a danger that a large number of Kurdish refugees heading for the Turkish border could push the region into serious ethnic conflict? What is the Government's strategy for preventing such a humanitarian disaster?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is right about the potential of extreme danger in the northern Iraq region. Obviously, we are continuing our overflights in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. That should be a comfort to them; they have been quasi-autonomous for some years, due to the protection we have afforded them.
	I do not think one can fairly blame French intransigence for the difficulties of post-conflict reconstruction and work. Perhaps I can give a little more detail. UNICEF, the Red Cross and the NGOs, to which the noble Baroness made particular reference, are working together to respond to any water and sanitation system disruptions. The Red Cross is monitoring Baghdad's water supply and power; it has prepared equipment for emergency water distribution if necessary. The UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Ramiro Lopez da Silva, has a headquarters set up in Cyprus already. The UN office for co-ordination of humanitarian affairs has deployed staff in neighbouring countries.
	The first donor NGO liaison meeting was held on 21st March in Kuwait. This will be a regular forum. UN humanitarian air services flights from Larnaca to bordering countries will begin this week. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Jordanian Government have signed agreements to establish refugee camps in Jordan. UNHCR has pre-position stocks of tents, sheets, blankets and other supplies for over a quarter of a million people on the Iranian border. The World Food Programme has sufficient stocks in Iran to feed 100,000 for two months.
	I am giving only brief details, but to say that nothing is being done by international organisations, of whatever sort, is unfair. The military are already delivering humanitarian supplies by land to Kuwait. Going back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we shall try to get a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship to the deep-water port as soon as they can clear the waterway of mines. "Sir Galahad" is expected to be loaded tomorrow at Kuwait City and further cross-loaded at sea. That is likely to be the first shipment to get to Umm Qasr.
	To go back to the noble Baroness's compendious point, we and the United States continue to urge restraint on Turkey. This, to put it at its most neutral, is an exceptionally sensitive situation. I agree with the noble Baroness; we are monitoring the situation closely and are in close contact with the Turkish authorities.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in churches and places of worship all over the country, people have been praying for our troops. It was with great sorrow that we remembered yesterday those of our forces who have been killed and journalists who have been killed and injured. I know that my colleagues on these Benches would be grateful if our condolences to the bereaved were added to those of other Members of this House.
	I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about those in Iraq who have lost their lives. War is always a tragedy and, yes, people are always killed and injured. Every human being who is killed and injured is, individually, a tragedy.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances about humanitarian aid. We on these Benches are particularly concerned about the role of NGOs and organisations such as Christian Aid, which are ready, willing and able to help. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance—as he has, I think, already begun to do—that the Government will give every support and encouragement to our own NGO organisations in this important humanitarian aspect.
	One area has not been touched on. Yesterday I called together in Greater Manchester the senior faith and community leaders. Many of my colleagues have been doing that across the country, particularly in areas like mine where there are very large faith communities. At the moment we can be greatly reassured about the readiness of members of other faiths and ethnic communities to be as supportive as possible to us. I was greatly heartened and, indeed, moved yesterday by what was said not only by the other faith leaders but, in a meeting in celebration of Pakistan independence day, for the support that they were giving to our troops and their sorrow at the loss of life.
	I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the Government and, indeed, European countries are sensitive to the kind of reaction that we can expect from other faith communities the longer the war goes on. I do not want to say more than that because it would not be appropriate at such a delicate time. But there are, I believe, a few warning lights. If we are aware of them, we may be able to prevent those warning lights becoming red lights.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked me to do so, add his condolences to the bereaved. I take his point about those in Iraq. Death knows no passport and no nationality. I echo what was said by the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, the Moderator of the Free Churches and the Chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams UK. They said:
	"This is a conflict neither about religion nor between religions. We completely reject any attempt to misrepresent it in this way. As Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders in this country, we believe that it is vital, amid so much uncertainty and turmoil, to resist any attempt to drive our communities apart".
	I am happy to repeat that and endorse it, and I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised the question in that way. He asks me for an assurance that we will give every support to our NGOs. I give that assurance. I can tell the House, in answer to his question, that DfID is fully involved in meetings with the NGOs. The allocation, even so far, to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent for pre-positioning food and other supplies is £2 million. Eight million pounds is going to the World Food Programme, £2 million to UNICEF, £1.75 million to UNHCR and £1 million to the World Health Organisation. We are paying careful attention to the NGOs' proposals, which are currently being assessed.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what assurances were given by President Chirac and, for that matter, Chancellor Schroeder, about the rehabilitation of Iraq when the conflict ceases? My noble and learned friend has been kind enough to tell the House about the assurances the Government have given to NGOs so far as this country is concerned. Has that been repeated by either of them?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. His answer can be found in paragraph 67, on page 31. It is the third paragraph—I have read the first two. It concludes:
	"We"—
	that is, the Council as a whole—
	"urgently need to address the major humanitarian needs that will arise from the conflict. The EU is committed to be actively involved in this field, in accordance with established principles. We support the UN Secretary General's proposal that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people can continue to be met through the 'Oil for Food' programme".
	On the regional front, on page 32, it concludes:
	"We express solidarity with and stand ready to assist those countries that are faced with problems and risks as a result of the conflict, including possible refugee flows. The EU will actively engage in supporting regional stability".
	Despite the differences that we have had with our allies—we should not forget that the French Government have been our allies for many decades—we must work together, not only in the European context but in humanitarian relief as well.

Lord Hooson: My Lords—

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, while I agree with the noble and learned Lord—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene in my own cause, but I do not believe that we have had a contribution from the Cross Benches. The House's view seems to be that we should hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that intervention and for repeating the Statement made in another place. I share with the whole House the sense of sorrow and loss over the tragic accidents. I have written to the Chief of the Air Staff about the Tornado.
	First, I commend the noble and learned Lord for his reluctance to dwell on raw and unassessed intelligence. I fully agree with him on that. It would be a great help if the Government could persuade the media of that too, as they are very active in assessing what they see in ways that can be upsetting and unnerving for the families and friends of people in the theatre. Anything that can be done to persuade the media in that area would be greatly appreciated.
	Secondly, I believe that I heard the noble and learned Lord say in the Statement that the objective was to remove Saddam from power. Is it too early to ask what Her Majesty's Government would do in the event that Saddam fell alive into the hands of British Forces?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given by the noble and gallant Lord. He is right about unassessed intelligence. It has been a feature of announcements over many years that they are made and then have to be corrected. As he says, a great deal of distress is caused unnecessarily, and the corrected statement tends to impeach the validity of other statements that might be fully accurate. The media must take their own course, recognising the fact that each journalist is a citizen of this country and owes the same responsibilities as the rest of us.
	On the face of it, Saddam is undoubtedly guilty of many crimes. There are alternative venues where he might be tried. If he is captured alive, he must suffer the sanctions of the criminal law in the same way as other criminals do.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recollect—

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have come to the end of our time.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 3.
	[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 49A:
	Page 3, line 4, at beginning insert "For the purposes of Part 1,"

Lord Greaves: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 59A and 59B, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and myself.
	We are moving on to a new subject—the counting of the votes and declaration of results in referendums. These are probing amendments, not least because two amendments say different things about the same matter, aimed at getting the Government to say what their thinking is on these matters.
	The substance of the amendments is to be found in Amendments Nos. 59A and 59B and covers two areas. First, they state that the counting of the votes must take place at the level of the electoral area, such as the local government wards or county divisions. Secondly, the declaration of the result must be either by principal council area as well as the region as a whole, or by parliamentary constituency as well as the region as a whole.
	The amendments would assist in the scrutiny of the results, so that people involved in the referendums, such as the counting agents, the political parties and campaign groups, can have some check on the accuracy of the results. If there is simply one great big announcement, it is difficult to know whether it is accurate. Indeed, the value of such a check can be seen from the European elections in London, in which the results for one borough were declared or sent in wrongly. The political party people were able to check that and get it corrected.
	The second and perhaps more important reason for having the results declared at a local level, preferably by principal council area, is that of transparency. We would be able to see whether different parts of a region had voted differently and how those parts of the region voted that have two-tier local government and would be given unitary local government if the referendum were passed and the Government had their way.
	We might use the North East as an example. With this amendment, we could see how the different districts in Northumberland voted, as opposed to the region as a whole—the metropolitan districts and unitary areas of the North East. It may be that even if Northumberland voted narrowly against a regional assembly and the region as a whole voted heavily in favour, the Secretary of State might decide on the basis of the referendum to go ahead with setting up a regional assembly in the North East. On the other hand, there might be a very small majority in the region in favour of a regional assembly while the existing two-tier local government areas—the shire counties—might vote heavily against it. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State might pause and think about the matter. He might come to the conclusion that the division of opinion in the region, even if there was a small majority in favour overall, was such that it would not be sensible to go ahead. There might be a great split between different areas.
	These are hypothetical questions, because we have no idea how people are going to vote. Given the opportunity to vote for unitary local government and a regional assembly, the people of Northumberland and Durham might flock to the polls to vote for it. Areas such as Newcastle or Gateshead might decide that they do not want a regional assembly because it might undermine the status of the metropolitan councils, which are important to them.
	As the effect on different local government areas will be so different depending on whether they are two-tier or unitary, we think that the results of the different areas should be announced. There are precedents for that. In Wales and in Scotland the results were announced by local authority area. Indeed, in Wales, we were all biting our nails awaiting the outcome of the vote in Gwynedd where, although the Government had more or less thrown in the towel, our people said, "No, it will be all right. Gwynedd is going to be okay". Ultimately it was all right and the final result made the difference.
	The results in Wales and Scotland were declared by local authority area, and we expect that these results will be handled in the same way. We have moved this amendment simply to get a commitment from the Government that that will happen. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I can be very brief. There is no need to give the commitment which the noble Lord seeks because those arrangements are a matter of law. Section 128 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes clear provision for arrangements for the counting of votes in referendums. That section requires counting officers to be appointed for each district or unitary district and for each counting officer to certify the number of ballot papers counted and the number of votes cast in favour of each answer to the referendum question. Of course there will be more than one polling station, but the fact is that the results will be available by local authority. That is the situation.
	There are further complications in some of the amendments regarding parliamentary constituencies. Parliamentary constituencies are contained within local authority boundaries in the area that I come from, although I am aware that in some areas there is a cross-over. MPs always like to know how their constituents vote on any issue that affects them, but in this case it is local authorities that will be affected as they are the units which form the structure of local government. There will be no secret about the results. A breakdown of votes by local authority across the region will be made publicly available at the same time as, or very quickly after, declaration of the overall result.
	We do not see the need for separate declarations of votes. As there will be no candidates, it is difficult to see who would attend the declaration. The information on votes across the overall region will not be hidden. As I said, that is provided for in law, which is why it is not dealt with in the Bill.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has described the certification of each of the boxes and we understand that that has always been the procedure. If I understood what he just said, there will be no sectoral declarations. He also said that all of the procedure will be open and that everyone will know the result. However, people will not know the result unless they are at the count. Will there be a declaration of how each county or parliamentary area votes in my own area of East Anglia, which is composed of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Bedfordshire? Or will there be simply one result and an announcement that, as in London, "X number of people voted. Y people voted in favour and Z people have voted against. Therefore there shall be a London Assembly"? If that is repeated, the intent behind these amendments will not be honoured as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, seeks. We would certainly support him in that.
	If a region is being asked whether it wants a regional assembly and two or three of the county areas within a region vote "No" and the others vote "Yes", that result should be announced publicly. There should be a declaration of that view, which should be taken into account in deciding whether to proceed with a regional assembly.

Lord Rooker: That is exactly what I said to the noble Baroness. The results will be announced by the local authorities within the region. The returning officers will make it quite easy to see how the various local authorities have voted. If there are unitary and district authorities within a county, it will be easy to calculate how the citizens of that county voted. It will be easy to calculate how citizens living in two-tier areas voted as against those living in single-tier areas because the declaration will be made by local authority. As I said, the legislation requires that counting officers be appointed for each district or unitary district, and the counting officers will certify the votes.
	The results will not be announced at ward level; but that is not the issue. In parliamentary elections, one can take samples, but the results are not announced at ward level. In this case, the votes for and against will be made known at all levels of local government within the region. So it will be easy to see how the various parts of the region have voted. That is what I said, and I am a bit surprised that the noble Baroness interpreted it differently.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I think that we have cleared up the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
	"PROPORTION OF ELECTORS REQUIRED TO SECURE A MAJORITY
	A majority in favour of the proposition will not be certified by the Chief Counting Officer unless a majority of those actually voting in the referendum in each of the counties, metropolitan counties or county boroughs comprising the region supports the proposition."

Baroness Hanham: This amendment moves somewhat in the same direction as previous ones. However, it is not about the declaration of the results but about the majority in each area. At Second Reading we discussed at length the balance between rural and urban and how one could be overruled by the other. I think it fair to say that rural areas fear that their views could be subsumed by the overwhelming vote in favour of regional assemblies in the urban areas. The existing proposals seem undemocratic because the vote of those living in shire counties could be well outweighed by those living in unitary authority areas in regions where the greatest proportion of the population lives in unitary areas. For example, the 90 per cent of the electorate who will decide whether people in North Yorkshire are to have a change in local government structure will have nothing whatever at stake because they already have unitary authorities.
	The local government of shire areas would, without any safeguard, be voted on by the whole of a generally urban-dominated region rather than by the people of the areas concerned. That would be analogous to having the whole of the UK vote in the Scottish or Welsh referenda, a procedure which was never contemplated for those exercises. Our amendment gives the right of veto to any one county, metropolitan or county borough. If regional assemblies are to be imposed, there must be a majority vote in every area affected. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend on Amendment No. 50. I think that her amendment is better and simpler than my Amendment No. 119C which seeks to do very much the same thing. I think it important that a majority should vote and that a majority should vote in each district. I also believe it important that a majority of the electorate should be required to vote before a decision can be classed as valid. There is no doubt that devolution in Wales was voted on by a minority, and similarly in Scotland. Both Scotland and Wales have had devolution foisted upon them. Let us hope that regional assemblies are not foisted on people in the same way.

Lord Rooker: I shall stick to the maxim that I announced when we began this Committee stage: I shall answer the amendment on the Marshalled List and not what might be thought to be the idea behind it. This new clause is intended to mean that the chief counting officer could not declare the result of the referendum as being in favour of an assembly unless a majority of those voting in the referendum in the two-tier local authority areas in the region voted in favour. Moreover, whether a majority in the region voted in favour of the question could be extrapolated either from the counts carried out by counting officers—as I said in the previous debate; there will be no secrecy about it—or by the fact that a chief counting officer did not, in effect, certify that the majority had voted against or that the votes were equally split.
	Where would that leave us? It is not as though the vote will not be announced. As I said, it will be announced by every local authority. The result will be available anyway.
	The amendment seeks to prevent the wishes of a majority of people being overturned by what could be a minority of people. I realise that my next point will be considered fanciful. In the east of England 88 per cent of people live in rural areas with two-tier authorities but only 12 per cent of people live in urban areas. That is a mirror image of the example that was mentioned. It is not fair to pick out particular regions to suit one's argument. I have already said that of the eight regions in the country, four have a majority of two-tier authorities and four have a majority of single-tier authorities. In effect, the amendment is meaningless as it would not prevent the result being known. Everyone would know what the overall vote was in a region. The amendment would not prevent that information being made available. It is anti-democratic from that point of view, but I do not believe that it would achieve what the noble Baroness intends. As I say, I have discussed the amendment itself rather than what it is intended to achieve.

Baroness Hanham: The amendment may not be absolutely perfect but I believe that it is clear. We say that for every layer of government there must be a majority in favour of regional government and that if one area is against that is enough to negate the vote. That seems not unreasonable where the representatives of a number of tiers of government—the counties, the districts, the unitary authorities and the metropolitan areas—all vote but have different views and different ideas which may result in different outcomes. That is the burden of the amendment. I cannot comment on the chief counting officer's certifying of the result but where the representatives of a number of tiers of government vote—I take the Minister's point that the vote could go the other way in some districts—and where there is an overwhelming vote from one particular part of local government that overwhelms the votes of others, that should not be allowed to be the deciding factor in the referendum. Such a vote should be negated and the chief counting officer ought to be able to declare that it is negated.

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister return to a point that he mentioned a moment ago? I believe he said that 80 per cent of the people in East Anglia live in rural areas. Will he reconsider that point? I refer to the populations of Luton, Hemel Hempstead, Basildon, all the areas around the urban part of southern Essex, Peterborough, Norwich and Ipswich. I do not believe that 80 per cent of the people of East Anglia live in rural areas.

Lord Rooker: I did not say that and there is no region of East Anglia, much though the noble Baroness may wish that there were. I referred to the east of England where 88 per cent of the population live in areas with two-tier authorities. This debate is about two-tier authorities and the perceived threat to the county councils. We do not accept that proposition but that is what is behind the debate. I believe that Yorkshire and Humberside were referred to. I suggest that the 88 per cent of people in the east of England who live in areas with two-tier authorities could outvote the 12 per cent of people in the east of England who live in areas with single-tier authorities. The 80 per cent of the population of the East Midlands who live in areas with two-tier authorities could outvote the 20 per cent who live in areas with single-tier authorities. However, I do not rest my case on that. As I said, of the eight regions in the country, four have a majority of two-tier authorities and four have a majority of single-tier authorities.

Lord Hanningfield: The Minister keeps repeating that statement. Certainly I should be content if the four referendums were carried out in the four areas where the majority of the population live in rural districts. What concerns us particularly is that in the areas we are discussing, particularly Yorkshire, Humberside, the North West and the North East, the rural areas can be dominated by the urban vote. Therefore, the people in those rural areas will not be given a fair say. I do not think that anyone is proposing elections in the east of England or the South East of England where there would be a massive majority against a regional assembly anyway as things stand at the moment. We are trying to defend the rights of people in places such as Northumberland, Cheshire, Cumbria and Durham, which seem to be ignored in the Government's proposals.

Baroness Hanham: I am not satisfied with the Minister's response and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 152.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 4 [Referendum period]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) In determining the referendum period the Secretary of State must take advice from the Electoral Commission on the amount of time that should be allowed."

Baroness Hanham: The clause deals with the referendum period, for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It states that,
	"the Secretary of State must by order determine the referendum period for a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1".
	The referendum period is a significant window that must be defined. It will have an impact on matters such as the recording of election expenses and the publication of election material during the period. Yet the Government are allowed free reign to decide on the period of a referendum, in line with the 2000 Act.
	The 2000 Act does not set a technical referendum period. It sets a timetable for designating assistance to the campaigns and arrangements for the date of the poll. The likely outcome is a period of 10 weeks. However, I emphasise that there is no set period. It is vital that the referendum period be correctly set. For that reason, it is important that there is some check on the power that can be wielded by the Secretary of State in setting the referendum period, or at least a minimum or maximum level.
	There is a danger—I put it no higher—that a Minister might push through a referendum quickly, which would stifle debate or prolong a campaign in the hope of allowing the "Yes" promoters to prevail on the electorate. The preferable option is a campaign of reasonable length, long enough to get information to the voters and set by an independent body with expertise in electoral matters. For that purpose, we propose that the Electoral Commission is such a suitable body. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As the noble Baroness says, the PPER Act does not expressly set out a period. Taken together, the official "Yes" and "No" campaigns and the date of the poll add up to a minimum period of 10 weeks. The Government's intention would be to set that 10 weeks as the period for a referendum on whether to establish an elected regional assembly.
	We would of course discuss and be guided by the commission on the practical implications of the referendum period that we propose, given its role in the running of referendums. I hope that what I have said has reassured the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister help us with the procedure? Will he give us some idea of the expected time? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested that the work of the Boundary Committee would take about a year, but in some areas of the country it may work faster or slower. Is a minimum time expected for that exercise to take place?
	Is there a minimum time between the completion of the Boundary Committee's work and when a referendum could be expected? We have already seen that the Minister is in great haste to get the Bill through, and we have suspicions on this matter. If an area of the country is designated and the work is undergone by the Boundary Committee in haste, with the referendum held in almost equal indecent haste, is there any safeguard about the length of time for which consideration has to be taken of the conclusions of the Boundary Committee? Will there at least be some consultation with local people before matters are fixed in a referendum?

Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to help the noble Baroness. We have made it abundantly clear that we cannot say how long the boundary reviews will take because we do not know how many reviews the Boundary Committee will be asked to carry out. We shall not know that until we have seen the statement about the soundings, and we shall not know the result of that until the Bill has received Royal Assent. We do not know how many regions the committee will look at. Its resources will dictate how many reviews it carries out and how long they take. We have said that the process will take in the region of nine months to a year. When the committee has carried out a review, its report will have to go to the Secretary of State for consideration.
	However, I can say to the noble Baroness that there is no possibility that we would set the date for the referendum on the day that the Boundary Committee issued its report on the review. In other words, the 10-week period could not start then because the Secretary of State would have to report to Parliament on his view of the Boundary Committee's report. It is what the Government do with the boundary review that counts and not the review itself.
	Therefore, after the Boundary Committee has done its work, there will be a gap before the 10-week period—the minimum period referred to by my noble friend—can start. We cannot go beyond that until we know how many regional reviews there are to be. As we have explained, that will depend on the size of the resources and the results of the soundings.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. However, I said that the Boundary Committee may take more or less than that amount of time. As part of my preamble to the question, I asked whether a minimum time would be set so that an assurance could be given ahead of the Boundary Committee's report that there would not be indecent haste between the committee reporting and the start of the referendum. In other words, it would be reassuring to us all if everyone knew that there would be a six, eight or 10-week gap before a referendum could be called at the conclusion of the Boundary Committee's work.

Lord Rooker: The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act does not provide for the Electoral Commission to give advice on the boundary review. We must not forget that orders will be brought forward in relation to this matter, and any order, by virtue of Clause 27(2), will be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. Therefore, there cannot be any undue haste in this issue. The matter must be brought back to Parliament and the Secretary of State must make a statement. I cannot say whether it will be made in the House, although it may well be.
	However, there is no possibility of a quick fix in relation to this issue. As I said last week, for a referendum conceivably to be held at some date in the autumn of 2004, it will be necessary for the Bill to receive Royal Assent at a reasonably early date—the noble Baroness seems to know the dates better than I do. If this and the other House so desire, that will be fairly early in May this year. It may appear ridiculous that Royal Assent should have to be sought so early. However, because of all the stages that must be gone through in order that there should be no quick fix and no undue haste, that is the necessary procedure. As I said, the matter must come back to Parliament for an order. Perhaps the noble Baroness would have been reassured if I had said that when I first rose. I cannot say how many weeks it will take for the order to be passed but, because it will be dealt with as part of the parliamentary process, it will not be done overnight.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that I want to ask him one more question which was triggered by his comments. Can he say where in the Bill it is stated that the order laid before Parliament will be dealt with by affirmative resolution or is it now recorded in Hansard that that will be the case? Do we take that as the accepted process? If he can answer that query, I shall return to the other part of my question.

Lord Rooker: Clause 27(2) reads as follows:
	"But a statutory instrument must not be made unless a draft of the order or regulations (as the case may be) has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House";
	that is, by affirmative resolution.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I also thank his noble friend on the Front Bench for the information concerning the amount of time that will be given for the referendum. I believe he said that it would be a minimum of 10 weeks, but it could be a maximum of 52 weeks. Therefore, where do we obtain information concerning the stretch between the minimum and maximum periods? Most electoral campaigns have a timescale from kick-off to conclusion. It seems to me that these referendums will not operate under the same format in that we seem to be given only the minimum period. Perhaps we may have an idea of the timescale for the maximum period so that we can decide how appropriate it is.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I was under the impression that the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment was to stop the Government moving quickly and filibustering everyone into a vote. I gave her an assurance about the 10-week period, but she is now asking a question which had not crossed my mind or the minds of my noble friend or our officials because the issue is not central to her amendment. However, as she has raised the question, I shall be happy to consider it.

Baroness Hanham: With the Minister's reassurance that I shall receive a reply to that question at some stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 52:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"INSPECTION OF BOUNDARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
	(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 to cause a referendum to be held in a region about the establishment of an elected assembly for the region.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall by order provide that a copy of any recommendations made by the Boundary Committee under section 12 in respect of the region in which the referendum is held be made available for inspection by those persons eligible to vote at every polling place in the region and shall be enclosed with every postal ballot paper in respect of the referendum."

Baroness Hanham: We now return to a matter that we have discussed on a number of occasions, including earlier today—that is, the provision of information to voters. I am sure that no noble Lords will disagree that the maximum dissemination of information to the electorate is of inordinate importance. Indeed, we have now received some reassurance from the Minister that some information will be given.
	However, from the debates which have ensued in this House and in another place concerning the Bill before us and the details of the elusive regional assemblies which they will allow to be established, it is clear that distrust and misunderstanding predominate, both in terms of the Government's intentions for the new regional bodies and the effect that they will have on transforming the local government structures which serve the needs of the general public.
	The amendments that I propose here focus on transparency. Let the Government lay the facts on the table for all to see so that those voting in a referendum have access to the maximum amount of information and can make an informed decision. During the process of preparation for the establishment of regional assemblies, the Government have rightly decided to lay much of the burden of the detailed practicalities and enforcement of the Bill on to two bodies with expertise in their respective fields: the Boundary Committee and the Electoral Commission. The former is to provide a comprehensive local government review prior to any referendum to ascertain the suitable types of unitary authorities. The latter, under Clause 8, is responsible for providing information to the electorate to raise awareness of the arguments for and against.
	Amendment No. 52 seeks to ensure that the recommendations of the Boundary Committee are available at every polling station so that the implications of voting "Yes" in the referendum, in terms of the reorganisation of local government, are published, displayed and made abundantly clear to every voter. Amendment No. 67 emphasises that, in raising awareness of the arguments, the Electoral Commission should describe the powers and functions of regional assemblies as defined in an Act but should do so without incurring unreasonable costs. This point returns to one that we raised under Clause 1—that is, an Act should lay out the powers and responsibilities of regional assemblies before anyone is required to vote in a referendum.
	I believe it is vital that these provisions are set out on the face of the Bill. Cost is an issue which has surfaced already in the debate and will do so again today. Reasonableness and proportionality must be maintained at all times when it comes to balancing the cost incurred by the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee and the efficiency and thoroughness of the work of those two bodies. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: We have two amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. I appreciate that Clause 8(2) provides for steps to be taken by the Electoral Commission to disseminate information which the commission considers likely to promote awareness among voters about the arguments for and against each answer to the referendum question. I suppose that that is a long way of describing information relating to a "Yes" or "No" vote.
	Our amendments refer specifically to the context of the "Yes" or "No" answers in relation to reorganisation of local government and the powers, functions and composition of the assembly. To a substantial degree we have covered that subject already in debate and the Minister has given many assurances. On a previous occasion I referred to problems in London where booklets have not been received as widely as they should have. Others outside this place may be affected by my colleague's concern.
	On Amendment No. 67, can the Minister say whether paragraph (b) would limit dissemination, given the words,
	"so far as that can be achieved without incurring unreasonable marginal cost"?

Lord Rooker: In dealing with Amendments Nos. 52 and 67 first, I accept that people should not vote in ignorance of what is planned. That is why local government reviews should be conducted before a referendum. This may be nitpicking—I suspect that I am drafting opposition amendments for Report stage—but the public need to know not just what the Boundary Committee recommended but what the Government intend to do with the recommendations. I shall return to that. Placing such information at polling stations would be too late. It should be part and parcel of what is put through every letter-box.
	Amendment No. 67 would scupper our timetable completely. I suppose that is the intention. It seeks to ensure that any information that the Electoral Commission issues to voters describes the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities as defined in an Act of Parliament. With the best will in the world there is no prospect of an Act of Parliament before the autumn of 2004. We may have a draft Bill—we shall use our best endeavours to achieve that so that we have the legislative proposals—but the idea of there being an Act of Parliament is an absolute non-starter. It just is not possible. Therefore, the amendment is designed to scupper holding any referendums before the next general election. That is not consistent with our proposal.
	The amendment is not clear, but is it intended that the Electoral Commission is not to describe the powers and functions in the absence of such an Act? It is difficult to understand how it will perform its functions under Clause 8 in the first referendums. This is a chicken and egg situation. If it requires a commitment from the Government that they will use their best endeavours to get draft legislation in front of the House and the voters before a referendum so that they can see our intention in relation to the functions, rather than there being simply a government statement about the functions and duties of assemblies, then I accept that we shall use our best endeavours to do that. We have made that clear in earlier debates.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we have covered some of the amendments and I was tempted to ask why we are debating them again. I am here as long as I am needed. First, she said that my responses had been adequate but she qualified that and said that they were not adequate. I understand the concerns and I agree that it is important to air the types of issues dealt with in the amendments so that the voters, in a mature democracy, have a degree of information that is consistent with making judgments on the referendums.
	However, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary because we cannot conceive of the Electoral Commission being able to carry out its function under Clause 8 without referring to the matters covered in the amendments. We have made it clear that prior to the referendum we intend to publish a statement of what the Government intend to do with the Boundary Committee recommendations so that that the information will be in the public domain, which is fundamental. We shall add to that the best available information about costs, functions, duties and responsibilities as well as the boundaries. It will be an important statement that will elevate the importance of the referendums, if there are to be any.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand that to some extent we have covered the same ground. It is clear to me that gradually, through the course of this Committee stage, we shall come to grips with what information will be available to voters. It is important that before the public vote they are made aware of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee. I tend to accept the Minister's view that it would be a good idea if they knew what the Secretary of State was thinking as well. It has to be published somewhere. I believe that the Minister has given an assurance that it will be published.
	On the powers and constitutional responsibilities, which takes us back to an earlier debate on Clause 1, I believe that this is putting the cart before the horse. If we had a regional assemblies Bill, this Bill would not have taken anything like as long. We have all tried to estimate, to guestimate and to encourage the Minister to tell us what the regional assemblies will be about. We are still not clear what the powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements will be. It would be preferable if those were in an Act of Parliament as that would allow the House and another place an opportunity to discuss it, change it and amend it before people were asked to vote for what is a completely new layer of government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Referendums: frequency]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 3, line 18, leave out "five" and insert "ten"

Baroness Hanham: The amendment is straightforward. It prevents a referendum on elected regional assemblies being held for 10 years following a "No" vote, starting from the date on which the referendum is held. As presently drafted the Bill says five years. The rationale behind the amendment is simply common sense. A vote in favour at a referendum brings with it both the establishment of regional assemblies and a complete overhaul of local government structure to abolish two tiers and to set up unitary authorities. Where a referendum is unsuccessful, existing local government structures will remain unchanged. However, it is inevitable that any long-term planning or strategies will be impossible because the local government bodies will be operating under constant threat of another referendum and a subsequent reorganisation. We propose to lengthen the time between referendums from five years to 10 years to allow local government bodies some degree of reassurance within which they can carry on their duties with maximum efficiency. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend on this important point. During the previous two days in Committee I was impressed by the arguments of those noble Lords who are heavily involved in local government, such as my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who sadly is not in her place. They convinced the Committee that the upheaval to local government would occur in the period leading up to the reform. We are now in the early part of 2003, so for a period of two years local government will spend time thinking about what will happen at the end of 2004 and they will not focus on what they should be doing which is running the district or unitary authority.
	If in 2004 or early 2005 there is a referendum, I pity those poor people in local government. They will be faced with another two-year period virtually immediately thereafter within the next five years when again they will have to focus on the potential threat of another referendum rather than getting on with running their particular area. Therefore, for that reason, I think that 10 years is better than five years.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I should have asked it at an earlier stage, but it has only just occurred to me. He referred to the soundings that the Secretary of State will announce after Royal Assent. Can the Secretary of State be taken to judicial review on his decision on the soundings?

Baroness Blatch: I know the noble Lord does not like two noble Lords rising on a matter, but a specific question has arisen. When we discussed the matter on a previous Committee day the noble Lord was helpful with the timetable. He was absolutely adamant that a regional assembly could not be up and running before 2006-07. If that is the case, and if a "No" referendum can be held again five years later, then—as my noble friend has hinted, but I want to make it more specific—if there is a three-year run in, because we are now in the early part of 2003, all the upheaval starts again only two years after the referendum is held in order to be able to hold a referendum in the fifth year following it.
	Does the noble Lord really advocate the upheaval that we will all witness taking place shortly and the unsettling nature of that for absolutely everyone, particularly those in local government? For an area that says "No" twice, it could be 15 years with only one or possibly two years' respite between each referendum. The rest of that time and enormous amount of resources will be taken up in going through the run in to yet another referendum. I hope that is not what the Government propose.

Lord Rooker: I am speaking off the top of my head, so I may get information. I have good and bad news for the noble Baroness. The scenario that she envisages is that of a "No" vote. If there is a "No" vote in, say, the autumn of 2004, there will not be a regional assemblies Bill. The only time that a Bill will be introduced to set up regional assemblies is after a "Yes" vote. So the timetable that I set out would be smashed to pieces as there would not be a Bill because there would not be a regional assembly. So the issue of the second referendum timetable cannot follow the dates given by the noble Baroness.
	I fully accept the point raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl about those experienced in local government understanding that doubts that hang over people's heads can be disruptive. I shall address that substantively. On the question asked by the noble Baroness, there would not be a regional assemblies Bill. That is the good news from her point of view.

Lord Hanningfield: Surely the Minister would agree that if there was a referendum in two regions at the end of next year and one voted "Yes" and the other voted "No", there would be a regional assemblies Bill for the one that voted "Yes", but the one that voted "No" would be in the situation described by my noble friend Lady Blatch. That would have had one massive amount of reorganisation and could be destined for another lot within a short period if we had two referendums, as is possible at the end of next year.

Lord Rooker: Yes, I intended to enter into that. I was using the scenario of one referendum. I do not know and none of us will know how many referendums there will be. We literally will not know until after the result of the soundings. So I cannot be precise about the timetable. It depends on the circumstances. If there was one referendum and it was a "No" vote, one could say the whole policy was shot to pieces in a way because the soundings would have clearly indicated referendums.
	I will be held to the timetable I gave—that there cannot be a regional assembly up and running. The earliest conceivable date I gave was July 2006, but in the circumstances in which I have it and not if the circumstances change.
	I shall not go to the wire on the issue of five years. That issue was raised in another place. One argument is that five years is the maximum length of a Parliament. Under our rules, one could argue that one Parliament does not commit its successor. So five years is reasonable on those grounds. If we provide for 10 years, another government could pass primary legislation and change it anyway, simply because one Parliament cannot bind its successor. We do not want people having constant uncertainty about when successive referendums might be held. I fully take on board the point about the gap between the first referendum and when the assembly is set up because of the need for a Bill. I fully accept that if there was a "No" vote there could be an argument for making sure that it was not revisited earlier for the reasons raised by the noble Lord. I shall discuss that matter with my noble friends.
	We want to avoid the excessive costs of referendums being repeated unnecessarily. But people might change their minds. If there has been a "No" vote and once the five-year period has passed—this is where the scenario is a problem because if there is one referendum there would not be a Bill—we could order a second referendum only where soundings taken showed that there is enough interest to hold one.
	One must imagine the scenario. There is the "upheaval"—I use the noble Lord's word, not my own—and the uncertainty of local government. There is a referendum, and it is "No". So it is big news in the region: we voted "No". It would be a brave person who came along and said, "Hang on, I think you ought to have another look at this". The natural reaction of many people will be, "We have decided on all this". But there may be changed circumstances. So there must be an opportunity to revisit the issues by taking soundings to test the level of interest for a subsequent referendum. Of course the five years in the legislation is not a requirement but a minimum period.
	The issue could be judicially reviewed. But people think of judicial review as an appeal on a decision. That is not its function. The function of a judicial review is to look at the way in which a decision was arrived at. As I have said, my right honourable friend has to come to Parliament to explain the results of the soundings and his judgment as to whether or not there will be a referendum. That will not be an easy issue. The soundings are being analysed at the present time. Ministers have not been privy to any information. Therefore, it is a decision that will be crawled over by people. The decision to make that direction under Clause 12 is judicially reviewable, but judicial review is not an appeal. I have covered the other point.
	The argument for five years is not brilliant. It could be greater but it will not be less. Clearly, if there is a "No" vote in one area and a "Yes" vote in another there will be legislation. Therefore, the next time around the legislation will be on the statute book for the regional assemblies. That delay would not arise. One would not have this period of uncertainty. I admit that in the example given the five years is not five years—it is a lot less. That issue should be addressed. That is why we shall have another look at it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not sure that I followed what the Minister has just said, but I am pleased to hear that he will discuss the issue with his ministerial colleagues. Local authorities generally work on quite a long timescale. Good local authorities plan for much longer than five years. Always to have at the back of their mind that what they are planning they may not be able to bring to fruition because of another referendum will be unsettling. The period of 10 years proposed is probably the minimum that should be considered.
	My other point—to which we shall probably return on Report—is that we are only discussing the position when the people in the region have said no. What about those people who said yes but who are completely fed up with the idea after five or 10 years? Do they not have the opportunity to say—we have heard enough about this—"It is costing us much more money, not doing what we thought it should, and we now want to review the matter through another referendum"? Will the Minister also take on board that possibility?
	It seems completely wrong to tell people that if they make a decision at one point, that is it and they can never alter it. The same applies to referendums in some countries about the European Union. Once they have said yes, that is it. But if they say no, referendums keep being held until they say yes. I want some fairness introduced to the matter of referendums. Perhaps the Minister will also take that on board with his colleagues.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister who at least empathised with some of the points made in the debate. However, I wish to ask one more question. I have read the Bill carefully but, unless I have missed it, there is no constraint on the Secretary of State from conducting his soundings at any period during the five years. I see no limit on his power to decide that he would like to reconsider an area that may have come quite close to saying yes but did not.
	A year or two after that decision, he could take soundings again so that in the third year of that five-year period he is ready to say, "I think that the Boundary Committee can now start its work again", and to hold another referendum at the five-year point. As I said, perhaps I have missed the provision in the Bill, but it would be helpful to know whether there is any constraint on the Secretary of State.

Lord Rooker: I have an answer, but it is contained in my response to a later debate. The answer is that it is only after five years that the Secretary of State can consider whether soundings can be taken. It will not be possible for the Secretary of State to order soundings to start three years into the five-year period; it is only after the five years have elapsed.
	I cannot cite chapter and verse about how the legislation is drafted—I shall have to read the notes—but there is also the spirit of what we intend. That cannot be gone against. A no vote means that the matter cannot be revisited for a minimum period of five years. Only after that period would soundings be taken. So, by definition, it would take a bit longer. I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when we come to debate another amendment. I gather that the answer is contained in my response to Amendment No. 55.

Baroness Hanham: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his candour, even if he has lost all his files, because he has again begun to open up some of the unrevealing words of this part of the Bill. I shall not press the amendment today, because the Minister has begun to unpick the problem and I should like to give him the opportunity for discussion to find out exactly what the period of five years means. I accept that he has given an excellent answer, but he may want to revisit it.
	We must underline again that the provision will be highly disruptive. If the soundings can be taken all over again and the whole process restarted, the soundings will also be disruptive. The whole work of local authorities may be undermined by the proposal for a further referendum. Has the Minister found the answer? Have I talked for long enough?

Lord Rooker: I apologise for the confusion on my part. Amendment No. 55 addresses the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and it is best that I answer it when the time comes. I accept his chastisement, but I cannot give him the commitment that he requested. I have gone as far as I can, because what has been asked is reasonable in respect of the first referendum and the timescale proposed by the Conservative Front Bench is worth a second look.

Baroness Hanham: Before I withdraw the amendment, I point out that Clause 5(2) states:
	"No further order under section 1 may be made",
	which makes it seem that the position may not be as the Minister thought. Under that provision, the Secretary of State would be entitled to start the soundings sooner than the five years. Perhaps the matter can be clarified. We shall return to it on Report when I hope again to be able to withdraw the amendment, having been satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 55:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"FURTHER REFERENDUM ON PETITION
	(1) This section applies if an elected assembly for a region has been established pursuant to a referendum held under section 1(1).
	(2) The Secretary of State shall by order cause a further referendum to be held in a region specified in the order if he is presented with a petition requesting such a referendum signed by not less than 5 per cent of the electors eligible to vote in the region as defined in section 3(1).
	(3) The question to be asked in a referendum held pursuant to an order under subsection (2) is the question set out in section 2(1)."

Baroness Hanham: I have been rather pre-empted by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. None the less, I shall speak to the amendment. The proposals set out in the Bill would result in some areas having elected assemblies and some not. That means that, to some extent, regional assemblies may reasonably be supposed to be experimental and on trial and, should they be deemed to be unsuccessful, the experiment should be reversible—especially as they will, we hope, have been voted in by a majority of the population, although possibly with quite a small majority. In considering the amendment, it is relevant to remember that the process outlined in the Bill allows regions to proceed at different times towards an elected regional assembly, as we have discussed.
	The long-term administrative and democratic arrangements for England may not be best served where one part of the country has an elected assembly while others do not. Therefore, a mechanism should be available through which an elected assembly can be abolished should it prove unsuccessful in delivering the Government's objectives and should the electorate so wish.
	The amendment proposes that if 5 per cent of the electorate has signed a petition, the Secretary of State must call another referendum as soon as possible. The proportion of 5 per cent as a trigger mechanism is debatable, but it seems a reasonable threshold.
	The principle is simple. If regional assemblies do not deliver, the people of the region have the right to ask for another referendum to be held to ascertain whether the majority is still in favour. The Government make much of responding to local wishes, and the proposed regional assemblies are a leap in the dark. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for jumping the gun. I have said what I wanted to say, so I await the Minister's reply.

Lord Rooker: Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I had the information that I was looking for all the time. I opened my folder at the wrong place. I apologise to my staff—they had provided me with the information.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will accept that the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 55 is in some ways unprecedented. Let us not forget that the regional assemblies will be part of the democratic process. If an assembly is set up, elections to it will be held every four years, so the public will have a chance to express a view on its operation. I accept that the elections will involve electing representatives rather than voting on whether the assembly should have existed in the first place. But voters could make it abundantly clear if they were dissatisfied.
	This amendment would lead to uncertainty and disruption—more so for local authorities and the assembly's other partners in the region. The assembly could be held to ransom by a 5 per cent trigger in a tiny part of the region without any other measure of public opinion or circumstances. I do not prophesise, but, despite massive voter turnouts and interest in what the assemblies were doing, an aggrieved 5 per cent in one area could suddenly trigger a referendum. That could cause a real problem.
	A second referendum would be like trying to turn back the clock once an assembly was up and running. The assemblies will be democratically accountable and will face the electorate every four years. The public can express their views on whether the organisation and its members are worthy of what they are doing without the need to abolish it and cause disruption. I do not think that this is a good idea. It is not worth pursuing.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister is wrong—we can turn back the clock; we will do exactly that next Sunday morning. The arrangements of asking people what sort of government they want and the reorganisation of government after public consultation are new. It happened in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not in England. It is a unique policy of asking people how they want to be governed. That being so, people would understand that they could make mistakes; therefore, they ought to be given the opportunity to correct them.
	In other words, if the public are given the opportunity to set up a region but find that it is not satisfactory, that it has created more bureaucracy, that it costs much more than expected and that the authority does not listen to them, then, under such a consultative system, they should be able to seek a referendum on the regional assembly. If a majority votes "No", they should be able to return to the previous system of counties, districts and parishes. What can be done can be undone. If the aim of the Bill is to meet the wishes of the people, let us go on doing so. If it is good to meet their wishes now, surely it must good in the future.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, ended his oration with the remark,
	"I do not think that this is a good idea",
	he oversimplified even his own argument. It was charitable on the part of my noble friend on the Front Bench simply to smile sweetly at the noble Lord when he made the remark. Perhaps I could not see her face properly.

Baroness Hanham: I have not had a chance to respond yet.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry. I was puzzled by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to whom I listen regularly with great attention. He put it rather easily—he can correct me if I am wrong—that people can make mistakes and what can be done can be undone. I suppose that that is true. Nevertheless, by analogy to the modern term "screwing things up", many people are marvellous with screwdrivers, and it is extremely difficult to loosen things and tidy up afterwards. I hope that the noble Lord will take the argument seriously.
	I have not yet been satisfied on one point—I apologise if it is not relevant to the amendment. Will the Minister explain what the Government Offices of the Regions are doing as regards regional assemblies? I cannot believe that they are just waiting their turn. I suspect that they are extremely busy constructing a nice, comfortable nest for regional assemblies to gather in when the time comes.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister sits down, since 1973, local government has been reorganised twice—around once every 12 years. I hope that he will accept that what can be done can also be undone and has already been undone.

Baroness Hamwee: I share with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the wish to understand better what will happen to the Government Offices for London. I do not share his optimism that their work will be passed to the regional assemblies. However, that point is not central to the amendment.
	The Minister's response was mild. We on these Benches could not accept the amendment. Once an assembly is established, it would be difficult to disentangle concerns about its operation as between, on the one hand, structural problems, and, on the other, anxiety about the politicians running it. Apart from the novel nature of the proposal, I fear that the vote would be affected by a political response to the assembly's administration at that time rather than structural problems with the assembly.
	The greatest support that I can give the amendment is to say that it would be a better response than that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to the GLC. It would have been better to hold a referendum than to abolish the GLC. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

Baroness Hanham: I thank noble Lords for the free discussion on the amendment. The regions will be set up according to the will of the electorate, not the Government. It seems appropriate, therefore, that the electorate holds in its hands the future of a regional assembly. A 5 per cent turnout is substantial. My maths is rotten, but the support of many people would have to be garnered to achieve such a turnout and ensure that a second referendum is held. Five per cent of the electorate would be telling the Government that there should be a second referendum to test whether the majority was still in favour of retaining the regional assembly. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made: it might become a test of what the assembly was doing. It might be a good thing for the assembly to be tested on what it was doing. It would not be an election of people to run the assembly: the issue would be whether what the assembly was doing was worth the money and effort that everybody was putting in.
	This is a matter that requires our attention, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 142.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 56:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"REFERENDUMS: EXPENDITURE
	After paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) there is inserted—
	"(2A) In the case of a referendum held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 an overall limit shall be placed on the total permitted spending by all permitted participants campaigning for and against the proposition, and that limit shall be equal in respect of each side and subject to an overall ceiling of no more than £1 million.""

Baroness Hanham: I freely admit that this is not a perfectly framed amendment. I am sure that the Minister will tell me so when he replies, so I shall put my shot in first. Also, the figure of £1 million in the amendment is there only for probing purposes.
	We hope to hear an answer to this point: what do the Government believe to be an appropriate cost for the referendum campaigns in a region? Do they intend, as in other elections, to limit the expenditure which can lawfully be spent and have that amount accounted for by election referendum agents? Presumably the Government have thought carefully about this, particularly since campaigning for regional referendums will be a cost on the taxpayer, or on those contributing to campaigns in what will be a hotly contested competitive environment. If £1 million, that is, £2 million overall, is not of the right order, will the Minister indicate what he believes is the appropriate sum?
	Turning to the main burden of the amendment, the House will know that referendum legislation already allows for unequal spending on each side in the referendum campaign. That unfairness is what the Government intended, and what it enacted during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Unequal funding for national referendums is enshrined in Schedule 14 to that Act. Although the Secretary of State is required under the schedule to have regard to the advice of the Electoral Commission, he is not bound by that advice, although he does have to explain his reasons for not following it. There are no clear guidelines on the funding rules given in the schedule. Instead, the Secretary of State may by order set whatever limits he wishes. He may, under paragraph 2(3), set different amounts for different referendums. He may also prescribe different amounts for different participants. So the Government can do pretty well anything they like when it comes to setting the referendum spending rules.
	We would like to see that unfairness revisited and corrected, but this is not the Bill for correcting the problems of nationwide referendums. However, we must address the possible risk of unfairness in local referendums. Strikingly, there is nothing in the Bill to clarify the position. This is a fair referendum amendment. It seeks to establish a position where the limit on the spending of those campaigning on one side of the argument is equal to the limit of those campaigning on the other side. It may be technically difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said in his report on funding. However, it would be fair and achievable, certainly regarding spending by political parties. That is why the amendment promotes equal spending limits for the yes and no campaigns. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, will he give an undertaking to publish before Report his intended guidelines on funding so that the House can consider them?
	The Minister should also address a number of related questions that may lead to unequal funding. What controls will there be on funding of pro-campaigns by EU institutions or by EU companies that are keen to advance the ideology of a Europe of the regions? What limits will there be on publicity from the European Union that directly or indirectly promote regional government or regional organisations in the run-up to a referendum? Will there be restrictions on national spending on publicity that may influence regional referendums? Would a company, incorporated in Europe, and carrying out business in the UK, be able to give donations without seeking shareholder agreement? The Minister may not be able to answer those questions now. He may also start saying that I am seeing EU reds under the bed. However it is possible that we may find other money being put in, which the Government had not intended. It would be helpful if the Minister could at least to answer all those points—although I see by his face that he may not. Will he either write to me, or respond in some other way, before we reach the next stage? I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am sure that the amendment is an appropriate issue to raise, however I cannot believe that it alone is sufficient or proper as an amendment. One simply has to look at the numbers—2.5 million in the North East and 8 million in the South East. Therefore, if a million is right for one, it is not right for the other. I do not know what the figure is. It is right that it is looked at, and that there is a proper playing field. It cannot be right to pick a figure at random and suggest that that is the same for each region.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is a fair and reasonable amendment, because it will elicit a reply which I hope will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I cannot answer the detailed questions she asked, but I will write to her.
	The amendment is unworkable. It is at odds with the approach taken by PPERA. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 allows for an order to be made setting limits on expenditure incurred by individual permitted participants—either by themselves or on their behalf. It envisages that this might be done by setting different levels for different categories of permitted participants, as has already been done in UK-wide referendums.
	First, the timing would be unworkable. We would want to make any order setting limits on spending in good time before referendums so that organisations and individuals know what expenses they would be able to incur before deciding whether to declare themselves as permitted participants. We would need to know the number of permitted participants in each yes and no campaign in order to set individual limits that do not exceed the proposed £1 million overall limit. We cannot set expenditure limits until we know the number of participants. However, we will not know that until well after we have set the limits.

Lord Waddington: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does what he has said mean that he favours some sort of limit on expenditure?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: When I rose, I said that I hoped that I would be able to meet the criticism of the amendment, implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. That is what I am leading up to. I am just setting the scene, which is important.
	Secondly, the amendment would result in an unworkable situation because it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce an overall limit. The amendment would, in effect, expect permitted participants to co-ordinate continuously how much each had spent out of the total ceiling. I am not sure what sanction the noble Baroness intends if the limit were breached. Would someone be criminally liable because someone else, unconnected with them, overspent? That is neither fair nor palatable. I hope noble Lords accept that the amendment will not work in practice. However, I shall be positive and explain how the Government intend to proceed.
	As I have said, paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act already contains provision to set different limits in relation to referendums held in particular parts of the UK. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has written to Sam Younger, the chair of the commission, to seek its views about whether different limits should apply for regional referendums and, if so, what they should be and why. That is a crucial point.
	The commission has not yet done any detailed work on what might be appropriate levels for a regional referendum but has suggested that its officials work with those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That seems a sensible way ahead. We would envisage putting out proposals for public consultation before making any order and Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise any order made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the PPERA in due course.
	I hope that in the light of the explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I can assure Members of the Committee that we are looking carefully at the whole issue and working closely with the Electoral Commission. We have not made up our minds; there is no hidden agenda. We agree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there should be a high degree of transparency in this matter and we will keep the House informed as deliberations continue.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. It is useful to know that discussions are being held with the Electoral Commission. I am mindful of the fact that in every other election there is a limit per head per candidate, so there is no question of overstepping any links. I cannot therefore see that that is not a possible way of dealing with the matter.
	I said at the outset that £1 million was tabled as part of a probing amendment in order to establish the principle that there should be a limit. It should not be the case that some participants can overwhelm the rest of the participants with the glory of their advertising material, set against the glossy background of huge sums of money.
	I should be pleased to know when the Electoral Commission is to make a decision. Is it within the timescale of the Bill? If not, how will the Minister inform Parliament of that situation? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Geddes: I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 57 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 58 or 59 due to pre-emption.

Clause 6 [Combination of polls]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 3, line 26, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
	"( ) Referendum polls held in pursuance of an order under section 1 may not be combined with any other polls."

Baroness Hanham: The Explanatory Notes comment on Clause 6 that it,
	"enables provision to be made by order for the combination of polls at a referendum under the Bill with other polls for any election or at referendums held under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Before making an order under this clause a Minister of the Crown must first consult the Electoral Commission".
	Amendment No. 57 would prevent referendums on establishing elected regional assemblies being combined with any other poll. Amendment No. 75 is consequential to Amendment No. 57. If regional referendums were combined with council elections in two-tier local government areas, people could be asked to vote for a new council at the same time as they were being asked to vote in favour of the abolition of the council to enable an elected regional assembly to be established in the region.
	Combining regional referendums with a general election could also overshadow full coverage of the arguments for and against elected regional assemblies. Two different but competing campaigns will be running at the same time, causing considerable confusion.
	If the Government believe so strongly in regional government, they must have the confidence to allow the debate to be unencumbered by other electoral distractions. The same applies in the general election where electors might find themselves voting for a Member of Parliament to represent their area in Parliament solely on the basis of the stand they take on elected regional assemblies and not on the more general policies.
	Establishing elected regional assemblies ultimately represents a significant change to the structure of local government in England and to the country's constitutional arrangements. An issue of such importance arguably warrants stand-alone referendums that are not overshadowed by any other polls.
	I find this a surprising clause in the Bill. I do not believe that we should accept Clause 6 and all the implications it carries without a more detailed debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reasoning behind the combination of polls. I expect that he will talk about the cost saved by combining polls or the utility of setting a vote on a referendum on the day of another poll in terms of voter turnout. If so, I would be unlikely to be satisfied by his argument.
	Amendment No. 58 offers another solution. Referendums may not be combined with an election which uses a different electoral system. On our first day in Committee, we talked at length about the confusion for voters. In consideration of the next few clauses, we will mention extensively the need to provide clarity during the electoral process; to disseminate information to maximum effect to voters; the duty of the Electoral Commission to put forward the arguments for and against; the importance of the preamble on the ballot paper; and the fundamental need for transparency on the reports of the Boundary Commission and the Electoral Commission.
	My noble friend Lord Hanningfield has argued our case for decoupling the questions. These amendments are based on the same fundamental principle. It is possibly hypocritical to combine elections for county or district councils with a referendum for regional assemblies. It is unwise to combine a referendum for regional assemblies with a general election, especially since a referendum order would be made for regions at different times. Information and procedure could easily become muddled. Regional assemblies are a separate entity and should be considered as a separate election. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: The issue of combining polls is difficult and faces us imminently. We have recently had the consultation on the combination of polls in May or June 2004. My view relates to the convenience of the voter. I do not necessarily jump from that to saying that it is right to combine polls. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about different electoral systems. It is not an easy issue, but we are strange animals and enjoy elections. The evidence seems to be that the number of members of the public who do so and want to turn out is ever decreasing. For that reason, I do not support the amendments.
	The position is not novel. We have experienced combined polls recently; the general election being combined with the county elections. We have tabled Amendment No. 58. Subsection (3) provides for consultation with the Electoral Commission before an order is made. We suggest that the chamber of the region—the assembly as it now is—be consulted and that the advice of both organisations be published. I hope that with regard to the Electoral Commission we will have an assurance that that will be published in any event. We propose to extend the consultation because regional knowledge in such issues is always good.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 57 would prevent polls for a referendum on elected regional assemblies being combined with any other polls. The amendment would not prevent a referendum under this Bill happening on the same date as another poll; for example, a general or a local government election. It would just prevent the polls being combined, so returning and accounting officers would have to make entirely separate arrangements for each poll. We would have, for example, separate notices of polls and polling stations, and returning officers for local government elections could not perform functions in respect of the referendum even if that was administratively convenient. The amendment could lead to significant increases in bureaucracy and costs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, predicted.
	The noble Baroness argued that the outcome of a referendum could be distorted by the party politics surrounding a poll for an elective office. I believe that the public are perfectly capable of forming judgments that are not clouded in such a way.
	The provision for the combining of polls in Clause 6 is precedented by Section 45(6) of the Local Government Act 2000 and Section 4(2) of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. Any order on combination of polls would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative resolution in both Houses.
	Amendment No. 58 would mean that polls for a referendum on elected assemblies could be combined where the electoral system—which we take to mean the voting franchise—is the same for both polls. Under the Bill as it stands, this would mean that referendum polls could be combined with elections that follow the local government franchise but not with those that follow the parliamentary election franchise.
	The amendment would not prevent parliamentary elections and referendums being held on the same day but would prevent joint administrative arrangements being made—although I suspect that it is intended to deter that from happening. I have some sympathy with the argument that it might be much less complicated to combine polls for which the electoral system is the same.
	However, I am not clear why the principle is wrong. Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, passed during one of the previous Conservative administrations, does not simply allow for the combination of polls to be held on the same day but requires it. It requires parliamentary general elections to be combined with European Parliament general elections and ordinary local government elections with these other elections.
	The Electoral Commission has a role to play in this. It obviously has expertise in elections and referendums and we are obliged under Clause 6(3) to consult the Electoral Commission on any order. As a consequence, we would conscientiously have to consider whatever it may have to say either for against such provision. Our current approach is much more balanced in allowing at least for the possibility of joint administrative arrangements being made if referendums and parliamentary elections are held on the same day.
	Amendment No. 59 would mean that the Secretary of State would have to consult the regional chamber for the region concerned, as well as the Electoral Commission, before making an order under Clause 6 on the combination of polls. Clause 6 already imposes the obligation to consult the Electoral Commission before making such an order.
	While it is clearly right to consult the Electoral Commission on a combination of polls, given its expertise in electoral matters and on referendums, I fail to see what particular input or expertise the regional chamber would add to the content of an order. Regional chambers have no locus in elections or referendums.
	Any order would be likely to be very technical in nature—for example, it could make provision about what functions a returning officer might perform instead of a counting officer for a referendum, or what joint public notices are to be published giving information on the election and the referendum, and what arrangements are to be made at a shared polling station. Of course, the order would not determine whether the referendum and an election are to be on the same day but, rather, what arrangements are to be made for them to be held together. Amendment No. 59 would also require the advice of the Electoral Commission and regional chamber to be published before an order is made under Clause 6.
	The commission's responses are its responses. It is independent of government and it should be for the Commission to disclose its responses according to its legal obligations and to decide about publication.
	In a debate in another place the Opposition explained that it was indeed the Electoral Commission's intention to publish any consultation that it may have with the Government. But, of course, should it fail to disclose any information sought, we would consider requests for information relating to the thinking behind Clause 6 under our code of practice on access to government information and, when it comes into full force, the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	We do not see the need for these provisions, nor do we think that they are appropriate. Section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires consultation with the Electoral Commission on certain changes to electoral law by subordinate legislation. This was recently passed by the House but contains no equivalent provision.
	The order will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and any concerns noble Lords may have can be raised then. The duty to consult will require us to conscientiously consider and take into account the commission's comments.
	Amendment No. 75 seeks to remove material produced in relation to an order made under Clause 6 (Combination of polls) from the exemption in Clause 11(3). I know that the noble Baroness intends Amendment No. 75 to be consequential upon her earlier amendments in the group. I hope that she will agree that, if we retain the ability to combine polls, this provision should also remain.
	I apologise for the length of my reply but this is a very important issue. In the light of my explanation, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for that involved reply. We shall need to read what he has said. The Minister has given detailed reasons why combined polls are a good thing as opposed to what we are saying—that is, that they should not be allowed—but how does that dovetail in with Clause 10, which allows no recourse to the courts if there is any irregularity? There could be on the same day a poll where one could have recourse to the courts and another poll where one could not. That could be an added confusion for the electorate.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Baroness asks a very fair question. Perhaps I may deal with it when we come to Clause 10.

Baroness Hanham: In common with my noble friend Lady Blatch I thank the Minister for an extremely detailed reply. I am not sure that he totally addressed the problem. We perceive a difficulty that goes beyond administration—that is, the practicalities of electioneering. We are, after all, political parties and political parties will be involved. While I know that voters are very sophisticated—even if they do not turn out to vote—considerable confusion could be caused where you are running elections with different voting systems.
	I should like to read in detail what the Minister has said. We may come back to this issue at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 59A and 59B not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Encouraging voting]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 4, line 4, after "encouraging" insert "and facilitating"

Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment No. 60, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 68 and 118.
	We turn now to the issue of what I have described in Amendment No. 60 as "facilitating" voting. This is a catchall term that might usefully be included in Clause 7, which provides for the Electoral Commission to do what it considers to be necessary or expedient to encourage voting. I have suggested the term "facilitating" to ensure not only that political considerations are brought to the attention of voters—which is "encouraging" voting—but that voting is made as easy and practical as possible for those who may have some kind of physical or mental difficulty in carrying out the act of voting. This was an issue that hardly needed to be brought to my attention and that of the noble Lord by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Mencap before they suggested some detailed amendments to the Bill which we have built in to our later amendments. I thought that this might cover the point.
	In more detail, Amendment No. 68 provides for the insertion in Clause 8(5) of the stipulation that the information which the commission must ensure comes to everyone's notice is,
	"provided by means appropriate to voters with particular needs".
	Subsection (5) is limited to information rather than to the act of voting. I am particularly concerned about the words in parenthesis; namely, that information should come to those entitled to vote,
	"in the most cost effective way".
	I am sure that other noble Lords would be concerned were that to have any implication as regards the needs of those who may have a visual or other impairment which makes it more difficult for them to vote or to understand the issues.
	Amendment No. 118, which I appreciate is a wide amendment, seeks to insert a new clause setting out a duty to meet the needs of disabled people. It applies to each part of the Bill in turn. In Part 1, Clause 7 deals with encouraging voting. There is a need to raise awareness among those who are hard to reach—and who are also often hard to hear—through traditional publicity methods. I refer to people who are print-disabled or have learning difficulties. Information needs to be provided in large print; it needs to be in short sentences and to use ordinary words; it must contain single messages. We have already addressed the complexity of the preamble. I think that we would all benefit from assurances on that kind of issue.
	On the referendum process itself, what provision will the Secretary of State make to ensure, in the orders regulating the conduct of referendums, that visually impaired people will be able to vote independently and in secret? In particular, can we have assurances that the Secretary of State will consult widely with the appropriate people over this particular provision? I am told that the RNIB worked very productively with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on guidance for mayoral ballots and on the e-voting pilots. I hope that that work can be replicated.
	Part 2 deals with the local government review. Clause 13(8)(e) requires the Boundary Committee to,
	"have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
	I hope that the Minister will assure us that clear guidance will be issued about the consultation process being made accessible for visually impaired people and for those with learning difficulties.
	Part 3 covers the preparation and submission of advice by the Electoral Commission. Will it be required to produce information in the formats to which I have referred?
	Finally, Part 4 deals with the funding of regional chambers. Would that we had reached this part of the Bill. They will have the obligation to scrutinise the work of the RDAs. I understand that RNIB research has shown that about three-quarters of visually impaired people of working age are not in employment. That raises issues about the activities of the RDAs. Secondly, the regional chambers will be responsible for producing new regional spatial strategies. The environment, in terms of accessibility for disabled people, is important in that regard. Any assurances that the Minister is able to give at this point that grants will be made available and will include money to ensure that the regional chambers have effective mechanisms for involving disabled people and their representatives and to adopt best practice would be most welcome. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I support the noble Baroness in pleading the cause of those who have difficulty in making it to the polling station to vote. Much of what the noble Baroness has said applies to most people: plainer English, simple instructions and easily understood information are just as much in the interest of all people as they are in the interest of those with disabilities. Obviously, special arrangements have to be made for people with sight impairment.
	The noble Baroness made a further point that I want to support. She asked for a guarantee of secrecy. It is all too easy to give a helping hand to someone at a polling station, but it is crucial that secrecy should be honoured, just as it is for other people. Whether or not the amendments are right in every technical aspect, some guarantee on the face of the Bill seems to me essential. We want to support that.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for what she is seeking to achieve in this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her helpful intervention.
	We as a government are determined to do everything we can to help people with whatever disabilities not only to vote but to be able to use the facilities of the assembly without any hindrance. I share the noble Baroness's horror at the term "cost effective" in this context. I also feel that consultation will be of crucial importance. I give an absolute undertaking that this will happen. To pick up on the detailed point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about secrecy, yes, we absolutely agree with her.
	Having made those general points, which are an expression of total support for the amendment, not only in terms of the wording but for the intent behind it, I need to say a few words for the record.
	Amendment No. 60 would extend the Electoral Commission's power in Clause 7 so that the commission would be able to do anything that it thought necessary or expedient for the purposes of "facilitating" voting at referendums as well as for the purpose of "encouraging" voting. While the meaning of "encouraging" is fairly clear, the term "facilitation" is much more ambiguous. I am concerned that the amendment would unhelpfully blur the boundaries between the roles of different organisations since it seems at least to imply that the Electoral Commission is to have a more active and direct role in the process of the referendum.
	Noble Lords will appreciate, and indeed the Bill and other legislation recognises, that there are some matters in relation to referendums which are rightfully for government and Parliament to decide—for example, decisions about whether to combine a referendum with other polls or a decision about the appropriate voting arrangements for the referendum. These decisions could perhaps be characterised as facilitating voting.
	Similarly, there are other matters which will be determined through a conduct order under Section 129(1) of the PPERA. The Government intend to make the order this summer and Parliament will have an opportunity to debate it under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is intended that this order will include provisions relating to voting by people with disabilities.
	Other detailed issues about the running of referendums will be the responsibility of the returning officers and counting officers. While I do not believe that this amendment would override existing statutory provisions, it would certainly lead to confusion as to whether the commission could also act in such areas if it believed such action would facilitate voting. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment No. 68 would ensure that, if the Electoral Commission acts under Clause 8 to provide information to voters about the arguments for and against the referendum question, it must also provide this information by means appropriate to voters with particular needs. I absolutely understand the noble Baroness's concern. We all know the excellent work done by the RNIB, not least in helping people like ourselves to understand the adaptations—often simple and inexpensive—that need to be made to help blind people play their full part in civil society.
	Before I came to this place, I was chairman of the Library and Information Commission. I had the privilege, over a number of years, of working very closely with the RNIB and other organisations, attempting to make the book accessible to partially sighted and blind people. I need no convincing of this tremendously important point.
	In relation to Amendment No. 68, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we consider that the commission will already have to take account of such needs in exercising its power under Clause 8. The commission's principal duty under Clause 8(5) is to provide any information by the means that it thinks is most likely to ensure that it comes to the attention of all—and I emphasise all—those entitled to vote. So we consider that it would already have had regard to the needs of the disabled and those whose first language is not English, otherwise the information it provides is unlikely to come to the attention of these voters.
	I can also reassure the noble Baroness that the Electoral Commission has confirmed that it intends to ensure that information provision is available to blind, partially sighted and disabled voters.
	Amendment No. 118 would ensure that any person or body exercising functions under this legislation should do so with regard to ensuring access for disabled people. This duty would apply to Ministers, the Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee and to public bodies in respect of their involvement with referendums on establishing elected regional assemblies and associated local government reviews. It would also apply to the Secretary of State when making grants to regional chambers under Clause 24.
	This is a laudable aim, with which we sympathise. But I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary. Ministers and public bodies are bound by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 not to discriminate against disabled people either when providing goods and services to the public or as an employer. I would expect the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other government department which is providing information for the public, to do so in a form which is accessible to blind or partially sighted people. That is our standard practice.
	The Electoral Commission has confirmed that it intends to ensure that information it provides is accessible to blind, partially sighted and disabled voters. And, although it has not yet decided on the exact content of the publicity package, I understand that the commission intends to produce materials specifically designed to encourage partially sighted, blind and disabled voters to participate in a regional referendum.
	Provision will also be made for voting for people with disabilities in any order regulating the conduct of referendums. The precise details are still under development.
	We know that some regional chambers are already using their existing government grant to develop mechanisms to promote social inclusion and equality of access.
	In the light of these assurances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. If I may go back to the commitment I made right at the beginning, in spite of what I have said for the record, it is the intention of the Government, particularly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to make sure that the spirit of everything the noble Baroness has referred to is met as well as the letter.

Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that explanation. He was right to extend the point beyond my description, as I failed to address physical disability. I am sure that many of us have been distressed that some polling places have not always been accessible to people with mobility problems. It makes one feel very ashamed.
	I take the Minister's point about many organisations having responsibilities for facilitating voting. As I understand it, he said with regard to Clause 8(5) that the first hurdle that the commission must address is the likelihood of securing information coming to everyone's notice. It is only after that hurdle has been overcome that the cost-effectiveness test will be met. The Minister is nodding. So there is a clear distinction between the issues.
	I will obviously look at the detail of the Minister's response but I appreciate the spirit of it and the detail into which he has gone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 4, line 5, at end insert "subject to voters being given the option of voting at polling stations"

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 61 would require that voters are given the option of voting at polling stations—in other words, that voting is not an all-postal ballot. I suspect that the Minister may tell me that this is not the place to address the issue, but it is a current concern. I do not think it right to fail to take the opportunity to highlight in a few words the fact that fraud in postal voting has not been cracked.
	Many of us have suspected minor levels of fraud. One has always had a concern, for instance, when—and I make no particular accusations—a nursing home asks for all the ballot forms to be sent to a particular address and says that it will make sure that they are completed. That relatively minor, though still serious, fraud seems to have become, in some places, systematic, large scale and, at its worst, intimidatory. We have tabled the amendment because it seems to us that a polling station is the only place where a secret ballot can be assured. I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to reassure us about protecting the sanctity—I put it that high—of the secret ballot. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I support the amendment. There are worries about the other methods of voting. There is a serious question as to whether all-postal voting is satisfactorily scrutinised to ensure that no fraud takes place. Polling stations must be available to people so that they can cast their vote in secret, bearing in mind that a lot of voting will be done electronically as well as by post.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support this very important amendment. I believe that if we want to increase people's interest in voting in elections for local and national government, this collective act of going to the polling station is very important. They see that other people are interested in voting for those who are going to govern them, locally or nationally. That encourages them to vote on that and on other occasions, because they know that other people believe it to be important. That cannot be done on the telephone—people cannot be told by telephone or on the Internet that they should vote.
	The postal vote system is open not so much to fraud, although that is possible, but to misuse. It has been misused not only in local elections in some parts of the country but also in trade unions. I was a member of the old ETU, so I know how postal votes can be manipulated to suit a particular candidate.
	If we want people to become interested in voting and in government, we must go back to the people. We need to tell people that we are interested in hearing their wishes by going to visit them at election times and having meetings where they can question candidates. In other words, we should go back to democratic electioneering, in which not only the candidates but the people are involved.
	This is an important amendment, and I would hope that a Labour Minister, of all people, would accept it.

Baroness Blatch: I wish to add one rider to all this. I understand that the department is thinking about how to increase involvement in voting. In principle, no one has any argument with that, but it seems that methods such as electronic and text voting, as well as postal voting, could become the norm.
	One thing that is paramount in that regard, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that one must have confidence in the outcome of any kind of election. Whether one is on the winning or losing side, one must have confidence that the election was run properly and that there was no level of fraud or double voting. It is vital to give people at least the option to appear in person in all elections. I support the amendment.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for spelling out that the purpose of the amendment is to outlaw the holding of all-postal ballots. That is the bare bones of the amendment. However, it is not as though nothing were known about this matter. There is currently a well-announced programme of piloting postal ballots in local government elections for learning purposes. The amendment is something of a pre-emptive strike, as it would rule out the possibility of postal ballots in primary legislation before we had any evidence from the pilots. That would not be sensible.
	We said in the White Paper that we intended that referendums on elected assemblies should be capable of being held by all-postal voting or by traditional ballot. No decision has yet been taken about the voting arrangements that should apply. We want to leave the option open. This is part of the programme to increase turnout. I ask Members of the Committee to consider the facts. We may have our prejudices about the beauty and tranquillity of the perfect systems that we have all used in the past. However, on the evidence of the 13 pilot areas last May, the average turnout was 47 per cent compared with 32 per cent in the rest of the country. We do not make a big claim about that, but it is a hell of a gap. Turnout was almost doubled in a couple of places—in Crawley and South Tyneside.
	We are not basing our opinion on one small pilot. Thirty pilots were run last May and, for May this year, a further 33 all-postal ballot pilots will be conducted. We will build on the lessons of that. The Electoral Commission evaluation report published last August concluded that the pilots successfully increased the opportunity for voting and secured a significant increase in turnout and that the process was well managed by local authorities. The commission found no evidence of fraud, although there were significant public anxieties.
	Everyone should be concerned about the possibilities of fraud. The present system is hardly perfect. Turning up in person to vote is all very well, but it is a bit of a rum do if someone has already been in person to vote on that person's behalf. We know about these issues, but there are few cases in this country of electoral fraud, as we can tell from the prosecutions. The numbers may not be insignificant, but we have no evidence that electoral fraud is widespread.
	I am also aware, because I can hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaking in sotto voce in front of me—

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister give way?

Lord Rooker: Oh, she is literally in front of me. I do apologise for not noticing the noble Baroness earlier.

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee? I share her misgivings. A great deal of coercion takes place, which cannot be proven as fraud. People are intimidated into postal voting. Among some ethnic minorities, it is difficult for people to be brave enough to admit that they were coerced into voting. As long as that kind of thing goes on, which cannot be proven in court, people's confidence in the outcome of elections will be destroyed.

Lord Rooker: I agree with the noble Baroness. I will not share my own experiences of the matter, but there have been allegations in recent years of electoral fraud on postal ballots. The police continue to investigate allegations made after last year's local elections. I do not want to comment on that, and it would be unfair to read out the areas concerned, but it is a matter of public knowledge that people have made complaints.
	I accept that it is difficult to get evidence and to persuade people to stand up in court. One reason for running a pilot programme is to learn the lessons about the benefits and disadvantages of postal ballots. Members of the Committee have used the word "intimidation", but that is probably too strong a word. It would probably not be classed as intimidation for people to go around to collect the ballots for posting to help their fellow neighbours and the community. "That's the way we do it," they might say, "but don't bother to mark your ballot paper because we'll make sure that it is done for you". We are not stupid about that. Some of us who have come through the electoral process—not necessarily a parliamentary one—live in the real world and know that such things happen. We need to learn the lessons and be on our guard.
	The security in the all-postal ballot proposals for this year's postal applications is important, and local authorities are co-operating in that respect. Special ballot papers, watermarks, inks and other measures are used to prevent fraud. It is very important to ensure that ballot papers are delivered securely and that the envelopes are well designed so that they are less likely to be confused with junk mail. We also need to target problem areas such as property in multiple occupation to ensure proper delivery of postal ballots. We will also have to contact in person a sample of electors during and after the election to discover what happened and how the process worked. We also need to publicise ways of reporting fraud and attempted fraud and make dedicated telephone numbers available to those who feel unhappy about what is happening in their area. We have placed a provision in all of the statutory orders to give legal effect to schemes that place a requirement on election officials to report all instances of fraud to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of those measures have been put in place this year for pilots in the 30 areas where there will be all-postal voting.
	Do not get me wrong; we are not saying that postal voting is the be all and end all of voting. However, as we are going through a systematic and nationally organised pilot programme to test the effect of postal ballots, I think that it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of postal voting in the referendums. If the pilots do not seem to be working and there are loads of snags, it would be foolhardy to proceed with them elsewhere. However, we are pre-empting that by approving this proposal. On the basis of that positive answer, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord said that no decision has been made on what form of ballot will be held. Can he tell the Committee who will make that decision? Will it be Parliament, the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission? If it is the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission, will Parliament have any input into the decision at all other than this debate?

Lord Rooker: Without looking at my notes, I think that it will be a combination. In some areas, the Electoral Commission will have to be consulted and will organise certain aspects. In other areas, that will be done by the Secretary of State. The point is that the orders will all be approved by Parliament. So there is no question of anything going through without noble Lords having an opportunity to participate and make known their views.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for the detail of his response. My noble friend Lord Greaves has previously raised the issue in this Chamber. I know that, like me, he will want to consider the matter further. However, I entirely take the point that an ad hoc provision to deal with one type of election and one referendum would probably not be appropriate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made some important points about the difficulty of obtaining evidence. I qualified the word "intimidation" with the phrase "at worst". Problems sometimes arise not because members of political parties are doing what they should not but because the head of the household says, "I will deal with all the forms". In some cases, that may apply particularly in families who are members of ethnic minorities.
	I have one question, prompted by my noble friend, which the Minister may not be able to answer now. Will it be possible to have different provision—such as all-postal voting or telephone voting—in different parts of a region? I think that, regardless of the question of evidence, we all acknowledge the difficulties surrounding all-postal ballots and the methods of counting votes. Although I did not exactly watch the counting at the GLA election—it happened so rapidly—I know that it is not possible for agents to check precisely what is happening. However, can there be different arrangements within one region?

Lord Rooker: I do not have an answer off the top of my head. However, I suspect that it might look a bit off in a regional referendum if certain local authority areas could not have an all-postal ballot because we did not trust the public in those areas, whereas other areas could have one because the people there were sophisticated, well known and basically all white. That would be the implication. So we have to be very careful. However, I think that there should be one electoral system for one regional referendum. Nevertheless, if it is an ordinary election, it will be possible, as it is now, to vote by post on demand. As for whether all-postal voting will be compulsory in some areas as opposed to others, I would very much doubt it. It is one election in one region.

Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the message can go back that it is indeed one election and that one system, whatever it is, should apply across the region. I should like to make it clear that the amendment is not motivated by my distrust of the public, and certainly not by any accusation regarding particular communities. If I distrust the public at all in this, it is only because of naivety. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.37 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Charges for Specified Welfare Services) (England) Regulations 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Supporting People programme, of which these regulations form a part, will go live on 1st April and will bring together funding for a variety of housing-related support services. As my noble friend Lord Rooker announced on 20th February, the provisional amount of Supporting People grant that English authorities will receive to spend on housing-related support services in the financial year 2003-04 will be £1.4 billion. That money will fund services such as domestic violence refuges, sheltered accommodation for older people and accommodation for homeless people.
	In addition to traditional fixed-accommodation schemes, a considerable and growing amount of support is now provided via non-accommodation based "floating" support. From 1st April, local authorities will take over responsibility for the payment of service providers. These regulations will allow authorities to recover support costs from service users who currently pay their landlord or other service provider. The Supporting People grant conditions and accompanying statutory guidance place strict conditions on local authorities' powers to charge so these regulations cannot be used to provide a new source of local authority revenue.
	These regulations allow authorities to levy a charge for specified housing-related support services where those services were fully or partially funded on the qualifying date by transitional housing benefit. These services are set out in Schedule 1B of the Housing Benefit (General Regulations) 1987. In most cases, the qualifying date will be 31st March 2003.
	In deciding whether they may impose a charge for a service under these regulations (specifically Regulation 3), authorities will need to determine whether the service was funded, partially or fully, by transitional housing benefit on the qualifying date. In making that decision, it is the source of funding for the service on the qualifying date which the local authority will need to consider. A local authority will be able to charge for a service under Regulation 3 even if the original transitional housing benefit-funded service recipients no longer receive the service by the time an authority is considering whether charges should be imposed. In such situations transitional housing benefit would be considered to have been a source of funding for the service on the qualifying date.
	The charging regulations do not allow authorities to levy a charge for other costs, for which housing benefit will continue to be paid. These are set out in detail at section 10 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.
	The charging policy that these regulations form a part of was formally consulted on in the supplementary consultation document, Charging and Means-Testing (DETR January 2001). Further consultation was carried out at the same time as the statutory consultation on the directions and grants conditions. The regulations before us today are a result of this process and the need for them has been widely accepted by local authorities and service providers alike. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these rather complicated and bureaucratic regulations. As I understand them, they switch the source of the money from housing grant to local authorities. I have a couple of questions. Is there any way in which vulnerable people might be adversely affected by the change? Why was it necessary to change the body which administers the charge? What is the purpose of the bureaucracy that the Minister outlined? One of the problems is that housing benefit is open-ended but the Supporting People programme is cash limited. If local authorities go above the level of the Supporting People grant, they will have to fund that themselves. I understand that the measure is supported by housing authorities and recipients. If the Minister can clear up the points I mentioned, I have no further observations.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I agree with many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made. Do I understand that local authorities will not have to charge for certain services if they choose not to? We on these Benches welcome the fact that local authorities have a certain freedom with regard to the money we are discussing. The point that worries me—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, touched on this—and about which I have expressed concern from the start is whether people will be adversely affected by the total change of regime, particularly as a result of the bureaucracy surrounding the change. I refer in particular in that connection to small organisations which offer help in this matter.
	The Minister may know that recently we discussed the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill. I wonder how the measure we are discussing integrates with that Bill. I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer that point today. I refer to people who have problems being discharged from hospital. As I understand it, some of the funding under the measure we are discussing will be used to support people in their homes. There might be some difficulty in terms of integrating the two pieces of legislation. I seek reassurance that the Government are aware that the two pieces of legislation need to be integrated. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I do not think that the measure is controversial at this stage of the proceedings. It was very controversial initially. Certainly, there has been concern about the total budget and whether councils would get the appropriate money. As I say, the measure itself is not too controversial, but I would welcome clarification of the points I have raised.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about the connection between the measure and the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked whether vulnerable people would be worse off as a result of the change. The answer is no. If there were any question of that, we would be extremely unhappy. There has been some comment in the press about the intention behind the measure. An article in the Guardian last week raised that question and concluded that vulnerable people would not in any way be disadvantaged by the change. Claire Tickell, chief executive of the Stoneham Housing Association, states:
	"Under the old regime our umbilical cord was with the [central] Government in terms of funding and local authorities had just a passive understanding of what we did. Now they will be actively involved in what we are doing and they will be properly engaged locally".
	That makes the point powerfully that local authorities will have this money to address their local problems. I give an absolute assurance that vulnerable people will not be worse off.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked why change was necessary. The reason is that the transitional housing benefit scheme was introduced as a temporary arrangement until this programme could be developed. I hope that I have not omitted to reply to any of the questions asked. I commend the measure to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Housing Management Agreements) Order 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [13th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this is the third order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to be brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
	The order proposes changes to the way local housing authorities in England and Wales can delegate their housing management work under Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 which it replaces. The changes are aimed at giving authorities more flexibility about the way in which they can let contracts for housing management. It also brings the section more into line with current legislation in clarifying the liabilities between the parties in these circumstances.
	Currently, as landlords, local housing authorities are obliged to provide housing management services to their tenants. Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 enables them, with the Secretary of State's approval, to delegate these functions to others by virtue of a management agreement agreed between both parties. However, Section 27 is framed in such a way as to prevent the "other party" from further sub-contracting the work.
	This may not sound a significant restriction on local housing authorities and it may help if I explain the context of the proposed order. This particular piece of legislation was amended in the days of compulsory competitive tendering when single, short-term contracts were the order of the day. Ideas have moved on since then and we now expect authorities to be more imaginative about how they achieve value for money and how they provide best value to their tenants and residents. Consequently they need to be able to enter into arrangements with providers where those providers can perhaps offer better value by sub-contracting some or all of those services.
	For instance, a housing association may be able to provide good quality housing management services to an authority, but to do so it needs to call on specialist suppliers such as those for sheltered housing or warden services. Under the current legislation, the authority would not be able to enter into such a contract which proposed sub-contracting the work. The changes proposed by the order enable management agreements to include clauses that enable the contractor further to sub-contract the work with the approval of the Secretary of State. In considering the proposed changes, it was recognised that there may be problems for a contractor should it want to replace a sub-contractor as a matter of urgency. That is likely to be particularly true where there must be compliance with the statutory and ODPM requirements to consult with tenants on such changes and seek the Secretary of State's approval. Consequently, the order allows for a moratorium period for a maximum of six months to be provided, during which the Secretary of State's approval is not required.
	One further point to note is that the current Section 27 refers to the relationship between the contractor and the authority as that of "agent". In considering the changes to Section 27, it was felt that the term "agent" did not adequately reflect the liabilities between the parties, and the opportunity was taken to address that. The new provisions make the authority liable for the acts and omissions of a contractor or "manager" except where the management agreement states otherwise and where criminal liability is concerned.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted widely on that proposal. The majority of respondents—82 per cent—supported it. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that the proposal was a suitable subject for a regulatory reform order and was satisfied that it should be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. I thank members of that committee for the time that they spent scrutinising the proposal and recommending it to the House.
	The Regulatory Reform Committee in another place also felt that the proposal was appropriate to the regulatory reform procedure. It recommended that clauses replacing the term "agent" should be redrafted for greater clarity. That we have done, and we feel that the result is much clearer and more easily understood. The committee agreed and unanimously approved the order. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [13th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Even I would recognise that 82 per cent in favour was a majority. Once again, the order is almost non-controversial. Perhaps at some stage I should declare my interest as a member of a local authority, and as leader of one of the first councils to turn the tenants' management organisation into one cross-borough organisation. I am in some sympathy with what is proposed in the order, which is the further possibility of delegation of housing management to other organisations, and more flexibility with that.
	The Minister probably mentioned a couple of the points that I am making, so I am sorry if I am going to labour them a bit. If he did not say so before, will he say whether PFI contracts will be part of the housing management delegation? Will it be possible for them to be PFI, or will there simply be a direct delegation down to another organisation, such as a housing association or another tenants' group? Indeed, presumably a private company could be brought in by the housing department to take over the management.
	The Minister made a point about tenants and the restriction on sub-contracting. It seems extremely important that the tenants are involved if there is any question of a contract being sub-contracted. The suggestion was that the Secretary of State would be able to delay such a proposal for six months. However, it is very necessary that tenants know exactly who their management is and under what basis they are managed.
	Will the share of liabilities between sub-management, management and the authority—three parties are involved—have to be properly delineated in law, so that tenants understand exactly the situation and relationship between one body and another?

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I do not think that the issue is particularly controversial. We on these Benches would be in favour of local government having more discretion about its decisions. Like the noble Baroness, I was very interested to know how the order fits in with PFI. We have so many different branches and ways of organising things these days that sometimes I become a little concerned about how they fit in with each other.
	That said, if the Government were in favour of giving local government the power of general competence, we would not have to go through so many complicated orders and so much legislation. We have made that point many times. I also understand that there were certain recommendations, to which the Minister referred, from the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and from the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am pleased to say that the Government took notice and changed the order accordingly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, may I first say a few words about PFI, which is obviously an important issue. The Commons Select Committee's report showed that it was slightly concerned about the government policy of using PFI for council housing and wished for a wider debate on the matter. It rightly felt that it was not appropriate to use the regulatory reform order to do that. However, the report makes it clear that the committee looked to the Government to instigate such a debate, and it is our intention to make arrangements for that.
	Tenants will be consulted, and the Secretary of State will want confirmation of that in order to give approval. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked how liabilities were delineated. The local authority remains ultimately responsible under the order, except in two circumstances—where it is defined in the contract otherwise, or where there is criminal liability.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Schemes under Section 129 of the Housing Act 1988) (England) Order 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [15th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the order standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is the fourth order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to be brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
	The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear in his recent Sustainable Communities action plan that co-ordinated long-term action was needed on a range of fronts if we were to address the complex housing problems that we face. Tackling the problems of shortages of affordable housing means making best use of the existing stock as well as providing additional housing. One of the mechanisms for doing that is the cash incentive scheme. Under that scheme, grants are paid to existing council tenants to help them buy a house of their own, thereby freeing up housing for a household in need. That can provide considerably better value for money than new build.
	The reform order will remove the current requirement for housing authorities in England to obtain consent from the Secretary of State to run a scheme. The change, which is a simple and non-contentious one—famous last words—will lead to a small reduction in administration for authorities and allow them to tailor schemes to suit local needs and make them more attractive to tenants. We expect that to provide a helpful boost to the scale of activity under the schemes.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted all local authorities, tenants' groups and other bodies with an interest. The proposal received overwhelming support from the consultees who responded. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that the proposal to allow English local authorities to run cash incentive schemes without the Secretary of State's consent was appropriate within the meaning of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It also considered that the order, as it now stands, is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. I thank members of that committee for the time they spent scrutinising the proposal and for recommending the proposal to the House.
	The Regulatory Reform Committee in another place considered that the proposal would remove a burden imposed on local housing authorities. The committee was satisfied that the proposal would not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. It was also satisfied that the proposal took appropriate account of the likely costs and benefits which might result from its implementation. The order was approved unanimously by the committee in another place. I now commend it to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [15th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have nothing to say other than to ask one question. I believe that this is an enormously welcome move. Again, it will take some of the bureaucracy out of the system. However, can the Minister say whether the level of grants that can be given by local authorities will remain the same as they are at present under statute, or can a local authority now have discretion as to how much it gives under any circumstances, or is it still bound by the original rules?

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, from these Benches, we also welcome the order. Again, it gives freedom to local authorities to act without the all-powerful hand of the Secretary of State in an area which is very important, particularly now that the Government have placed great emphasis on local housing strategies. This issue is obviously an important part of that.
	Again, the Government have made changes in accordance with the relevant committee recommendations in both Houses. Personally, I believe that this is a far better way of assisting people to enter home ownership than the right-to-buy system, because it means that the property they are renting remains as a social housing unit for renting. I am particularly in favour of that.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful that the order has been welcomed. With regard to whether the level of grants will remain the same, new arrangements will provide authorities with the power to decide the level of grants to be offered. Therefore, there is an element of flexibility in that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the order was laid before the House on 6th March and was approved in another place on 20th March. It will facilitate electronic handling of parts of the town and country planning system. It does so by amending existing legislation to remove obstacles to the effective use of electronic communications. Because it is an amending instrument, the order may not be an easy document to read. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I summarise the background and purpose of the order.
	Central and local government have adopted the target of making all services available electronically by December 2005. For planning services, that target will require the electronic delivery of a fully functioning development control service. In order to achieve the target, we must seek to ensure that we remove any legal and regulatory barriers to electronic working. Section 8 of the Electronics Communications Act 2000, under which this order has been made, gives us powers to amend existing legislation to remove any such barriers in our legislation which may prevent the use of electronic communication and storage in place of paper.
	The order chiefly amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended. It is the principal Act governing the planning system, together with parts of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, two schedules to the Environment Act 1995 and some of the secondary legislation made under the planning Acts. The intention of all the amendments made by the order is to ensure that the relevant legislation can be construed explicitly and consistently as permitting the use of electronic communication.
	The amendments provide for the electronic submission, receipt and handling of: planning applications, including outline planning applications and reserved matters applications; applications for listed building and conservation area consent; applications to mineral planning authorities; applications for determination of whether prior approval is required; applications for certificates of lawful use of development; planning appeals; listed building and conservation area consent appeals; and, finally, enforcement notice appeals, including listed buildings and conservation area enforcement appeals.
	The order is only in respect of part of the planning system and we have in hand the preparation of a further order to deal with advertisement consents and appeals. Further Section 8 orders may be needed, but future primary and secondary legislation is being prepared so that it is compatible with electronic working.
	As I have mentioned, the order facilitates the electronic handling of parts of the planning system and so does no more than create an opportunity for those who wish to use an electronic rather than a paper-based planning system. The existing paper-based system will continue to operate for as long as those engaging in the planning system wish to use it.
	But the potential benefits of engaging in the planning process electronically are considerable. They include, for example: faster—almost instantaneous—transmission between parties; reduced postage, packing, photocopying and printing; reduced storage space for papers and files; closer linkages between participants in the planning system; better access to guidance, support and tools to support the planning process; and, in particular, more open access to the planning system for all parties.
	The order has been welcomed by key stakeholders in the planning system, including the Royal Town Planning Institution, the Council on Tribunals and the Local Government Association. In particular, the Council on Tribunals considered that giving people the opportunity to communicate electronically while continuing the operation of a paper-based system for as long people wanted it was absolutely right. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a town planning committee. If people want to work through an electronic system, that is great. Is there any danger that the order may be used for consultation purposes? I believe that one needs to write on paper to those being consulted rather than rely on electronic methods, as one may miss someone. Apart from that I have no objections. I hope that people have a merry time with this.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the use of modern technology. We welcome the fact that electronic communication will not be compulsory, which could lead to people being excluded. We should also take account of the fact that electronic transmission does not always work. In my part of the world the electricity system does not always work. As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who is in his seat, knows, I have raised this matter several times with him.
	I also hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government will monitor the progress of the scheme and evaluate how it works. I picked up from somewhere the fact that although this is to happen, the advertising of it has not been great; people do not know about it. How will people receive information on the system so that they can use it and what steps will the Government take to evaluate how it is progressing? Apart from that we support the order.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my only regret is that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his place. As someone who consistently chides the Government about how slow they are to introduce electronic communication and as someone who was heavily involved with a system for libraries in a previous incarnation, I totally support what the noble Lord says. Of course, this system will not be compulsory. As I have said before, both systems—hard copy and electronic—can be used for as long as necessary. My private view is that once someone starts to use electronic methods of communicating it is difficult to go back to a hard copy.
	I have been asked how we shall evaluate the scheme. Nothing in the order deals with evaluating, but we shall note the concerns of noble Lords and we shall see how matters progress. In other areas where electronic communication has been introduced, it has been an almost entirely positive development. A fascinating point is that electronic communication is a generation thing. My generation is accustomed to the printed word and writing letters but the younger generation use e-mails and enjoy communicating electronically. I hope that that has answered the few questions I was asked.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2003

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in speaking to this set of regulations I shall also speak to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2003. Towards the end of last year, the House debated regulations introducing a package of measures that give more support and choice for parents in the workplace. As part of that package the Government are introducing new leave and pay rights for employees adopting children in Great Britain. I am sure we can all agree that this is an excellent thing as it will mean that from 6th April 2003 adopting parents will have leave and pay entitlements comparable to the maternity provisions. For the first time, those parents, who perform such a valuable function in our society, will have a statutory right to time off work to establish a relationship with their new child.
	The regulations we have before us today ensure that the right to adoption leave also applies to those who have adopted a child from overseas, a process sometimes known as inter-country adoption. We are not debating the pay aspects today as these are dealt with by separate regulations laid before Parliament by the negative resolution procedure. These regulations define an adoption from overseas as,
	"the adoption of a child who enters Great Britain from outside the United Kingdom in connection with or for the purposes of adoption which does not involve the placement of the child for adoption under the law of any part of the United Kingdom".
	The Government believe that it is only right that children who are adopted from overseas following the proper procedures and brought to live in this country permanently with their adoptive parents are given the same chance as any other child to develop a lasting and close relationship with their parents. In some cases these children will not be newly-born babies and one could argue that the period needed for them to integrate into their new home need not be as long. We should bear in mind the difficulties that these children will often have encountered in their lives and that, while the task for adoptive parents is different from that which birth parents face, it is in some ways harder, and easily requires as much time and patience. We therefore undertook to give the same rights to parents adopting from overseas as those adopting within Great Britain during the passage of the Employment Bill.
	Those rights are 12 months' adoption leave for one adoptive parent, six months' leave paid at the standard rate of £100 per week followed by six months' unpaid leave. The other parent will be eligible for one or two weeks' paternity leave, again paid at the standard rate of £100 per week. So the entitlements are the same as those for domestic adoptions. The need for separate regulation for overseas adoptions arises because the processes involved in overseas adoptions differ markedly from those for domestic adoptions and are complex in themselves.
	The main difference is that the key concepts of a child being "placed" with the adopter and of the adopter being "matched" with a child, which appear in the domestic regulations as elements of the conditions of entitlement and as points at which the employee is required to give notice to the employer, do not occur in this country in the case of overseas adoptions.
	Of course it is important that we get the notification mechanism right, so that employers have a fair idea of when their employee will take leave in order to plan for the future. Getting the notification requirements right has been a difficult matter as overseas adoption is usually a long-drawn out process, which is often subject to uncertainty. The Government realised that after they talked to interested parties—the Department of Health and the Inland Revenue—about the processes involved. However, it was clear that certain key points in the process could be used.
	Adopters will receive an official notification, in most cases from the Secretary of State for Health, that they have been assessed as suitable to adopt. The regulations use that point and the date on which the child enters Great Britain as elements in the conditions of entitlement and as points at which employees must notify their employer of their intention to take leave if they have sufficient length of service.
	It can often take more than a year for a child to enter the country following a favourable assessment of the potential adopters. For that reason we allow for the possibility that an employee may move jobs, perhaps in circumstances beyond his or her control. We do not think that it would be fair to exclude employees from the rights where that happens, and we do not think that it would be to the advantage of employers to do so. So employees wishing to take adoption or paternity leave also have the option of notifying their employer of their intention to take leave once they have the necessary 26 weeks' qualifying service with their new employer, even if they received the certificate of notification some time before.
	In all cases employees must have worked for their employer for 26 weeks to qualify for the rights, and must give their employer a minimum of 28 days' notice of when they intend that leave to start. The regulations will operate within the context of adoption law, which sets out the procedures for adoption from overseas. Under that legislation, adopters must follow clearly defined rules to be assessed and approved to adopt and to gain entry clearance for their new child.
	I want to stress that most employers will not be affected by these measures. At present there are in the region of 300 adoptions of children from overseas a year. The numbers are not likely to increase and not everyone will take advantage of the new rights. Although these rights will affect only a small number of people and their employers, I believe they represent an important addition to the new rights for working parents as they make sure that people do not miss out on the opportunity to balance life and work just because they decided to adopt a child from overseas rather than in Great Britain. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the two draft regulations. The 10th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place, spent time debating the regulations in detail. I do not think that it is right to take up your Lordships' time by repeating that discussion, especially as we on these Benches accept, with some reservations, the necessity for them. It does not make sense to have maternity, paternity and adoptive leave without covering the situation of adoption from overseas.
	The Minister said that there are only about 300 overseas adoptions a year, and that it is by no means certain that all adoptive parents will want to take advantage of these provisions. While that is true, the fact is that whereas large companies can cope with the problems caused by the absence of an employee, for many small businesses, who work with an absolutely minimal work force, these regulations and indeed all the other rights to take leave can cause substantial difficulties.
	Having read the draft regulations and the discussion in another place, I am uncertain about the timing of the operation of these regulations in the case of an overseas adoption, because sometimes such an adoption requires more than one visit to the country concerned—sometimes over an extended period. Will the Minister confirm when the clock starts to tick, and that the time needed to go overseas as a preliminary to the adoption process does not count—in other words, that preliminary process is in the employee's own holiday time.
	My honourable friend the Member for North West Norfolk asked why the matter had not been dealt with when the package of proposals relating to maternity, paternity and adoption leave was debated, during the passage of the Employment Act 2002. The only answer given was that the Government made it clear that they:
	"would take separate powers to deal with overseas adopters, because the law is very different and complex".—[Official Report, Commons 10th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 13/3/03; col. 8.]
	With the greatest respect, however complex the law of adoption may be, there is no great difference as regards adoption leave, as is demonstrated by the comparative brevity and simplicity of these regulations.
	This is simply another example of the Government having to cope with the consequences of rushing legislation on to the statute book without first working out all the ramifications, and without adequate time being given to the Committee in another place to debate Bills in fuller detail.
	However, as I said, we support the regulations and their acceptance by this House.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and detailed explanation of the regulations. For me, it shows the importance of the rights of children that we are making their welfare a priority—something that we do not always do in this country in the way that many of our European Union colleagues do. Much of their legislation and day-to-day life places a high priority on the importance of children's welfare. On that basis, we especially welcome the regulations.
	My noble friend Lady Barker would normally speak for the Liberal Democrats on the regulations; she has previously spoken for us on adoption matters. I know that if she were here, she would fully support the regulations. She told me, "The Government must have got it right, because all the agencies involved fully support what they are doing". So we are happy to support the regulations.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. If I understand them correctly, official notification is required for adoption and paternity leave to be required. If there is no official notification, is the adoption still legal in this country?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the first question raised concerned the impact on small businesses. When we introduced paternity and adoption pay, we considered its impact on small businesses. We believe that those basic employment rights should help all employers and employees. Parents who work in small firms are not excluded from benefiting from the new measures. We have used the Small Business Service as a channel to reach small businesses in extensive consultation on the rights, and have specifically considered those businesses in the regulatory impact assessment.
	It was also asked why we need separate regulations for foreign adoptions. I hope that it was clear from my opening statement that different considerations on timing apply to such situations. It therefore seemed sensible to deal with the first category, where the position was much clearer, and then conduct special discussion and consideration on this matter. Nothing would have been gained from rushing the provision through.
	On the question of whether an adopter will be able to take paid adoption leave to go overseas to arrange an adoption, the answer is no. Statutory adoption pay and leave will not start until the child has entered the country. It is not meant to be used by employees to travel overseas to arrange the adoption or visit the child. Adopters should talk to their employers about other types of leave that they might take to cover the period. Paid adoption leave is available to help adopters to take time off work when they return to the UK with a child to give them time to establish a relationship before returning to work. It is hoped that using the time in that way will reduce the number of disrupted placements.
	Individuals bringing children into the country illegally will not be eligible for adoption leave. Adopters must comply with UK law and the laws of the country in which the child lives. The law will allow only local councils and some voluntary adoption agencies to facilitate adoptions from overseas. That deals with the points raised. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2003

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 p.m.]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 7.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Page 4, line 5, at end insert "provided that anything they undertake to encourage voting does not disproportionately favour one of the possible referendum outcomes to the detriment of the other"

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 62 would write into the Bill a requirement that the Electoral Commission be impartial. The amendment is concerned with the duty of the Electoral Commission to encourage voting in a referendum on regional assemblies.
	As we know, the Electoral Commission plays a crucial part in the referendum process proposed in the Bill. We all welcome that. It is right and proper that, as an independent body with specific expertise in elections, it should be consulted during preparations for a referendum and the actual voting process. The Electoral Commission is and must be an impartial authority. Amendment No. 62 would make that impartiality explicit.
	I do not want to besmear the good name of the Electoral Commission by suggesting that it would, in any way, show bias or prejudice when encouraging voting. However, for reasons of clarity, the requirement should be in the Bill, especially given that the Electoral Commission will be financed from government funds and in the light of the illicit activities of several bodies that serve only to heighten suspicion. It is important, therefore, to emphasise in the Bill that the Electoral Commission has a statutory responsibility to ensure proportionality when encouraging voting.
	It would be easy to tip the balance in either direction—for or against. That would have severe implications for the validity of the outcome of the referendum. The amendment would be a safeguard against such circumstances and would guarantee balanced encouragement for voting by the Electoral Commission. "Encouraging voting" means boosting voter turnout rather than positively advocating one outcome or another. That should be stressed as a positive duty of the Electoral Commission.
	This is an unfortunate process. The Minister will know that I had misgivings about coming to the point of having regional assemblies by such a method. The Bill is skeletal and triggers off a great deal of executive action. Already, we know that there is positive campaigning at public expense going on. We have discussed that several times. It is important that the next activity—encouraging people to come out and vote—should not be confused with telling people why and how they will vote or what they will vote for. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I agree with virtually the whole thrust of the noble Baroness's case. However, I hope that I can persuade her not to add the words to the Bill. The perverse effect of doing so would be that, read literally, they would encourage the Electoral Commission to seek to persuade one way or the other, and I shall explain why. The amendment is, in any case, unnecessary and undesirable.
	The Electoral Commission is an independent body, and I know of nobody who has any complaints about the way in which it operates. It takes a fair and responsible approach to a list of statutory duties, and it should never be seen to favour one outcome of a referendum over another. Under Clause 7 without the amendment, the commission will have a public law duty to act in a reasonable and balanced way. It could be subject to challenge by judicial review if it acted in a biased way. The power is simply to encourage voting—not any particular outcome. The amendment might encourage the commission to act in a biased way. If the commission has information that one particular result in a referendum is more likely than another, should it actively persuade voting the other way? The amendment might imply that the commission could favour one of the outcomes of a referendum, provided it acts proportionately—whatever that means. I am not playing around with words, but that could be a literal interpretation of the amendment.
	However, I support the thrust behind the noble Baroness' speech, because the commission's job is not to take sides, but to seek to encourage voting and to encourage people to turn out. It should not in any way influence who they vote for, or which way they should vote, in a referendum. The commission must carry out that duty in an unbiased way. Even levelling allegations of bias would be very serious. We are not seeking to allow the commission to do anything improper, or to seek to influence the outcome of the election.
	There are people who argue that higher turnouts influence outcomes of elections—of course they do. That is the point of the exercise—to encourage people to participate in the democratic process. That is not the same as persuading them to vote one way or the other. I hope that the spirit of my reply is such that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, because there is no way that the commission would be able to seek to influence anything. Otherwise, it would be subject to judicial review.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for at least understanding the point of my amendment. However, whilst he thinks its words would create a perverse effect, I think that his explanation is somewhat perverse. It says:
	"The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at referendums to be held in pursuance of an order under section 1"
	We know that if it can do anything it thinks would be "necessary or expedient", it could encourage people to vote—perhaps if the outcome was perceived as a foregone conclusion, and it was just encouraging other people who were perhaps apathetic or even anti or pro, depending on which bias was being talked about. That does seem to be a course open to the Electoral Commission, quite within the remit of Clause 7. There is no reference to balance or neutrality. There is only a reference saying that the commission may do,
	"anything they think necessary or expedient for the purposes of encouraging voting".
	My words—and I will look at them again—
	"provided that anything they undertake to encourage voting does not disproportionately favour one of the possible referendum outcomes to the detriment of the other"
	mean that the commission should not become involved in persuading people to vote for or against anything. The business is not to do that. However, the Minister is saying that my words would allow them to do just that.

Lord Rooker: No, the whole purpose and power of Clause 7 is for the commission to encourage voting, not to encourage the outcome. The outcome is irrelevant to the commission. That is not its function. To encourage the voting is not the same as to encourage the outcome. One would recognise the elephant on the doorstep. If the commission stepped out of line, there would be trouble, because it is easy to see what encourages voting as opposed to what encourages the outcome. There is no power in this clause for it to seek to encourage the outcome.

Baroness Blatch: Even taking that into account, I think that we both want the same thing. We both want to encourage people to come out and vote, and to take part in the democratic process. We do not believe it is the job of the Electoral Commission to do anything other than persuade people to vote. It could be that if a part of a region is showing little interest in voting, but may vote predominantly one way or another, there is a fine line on how it would be perceived, if the Electoral Commission took "any measure necessary". Clause 7 is free-standing in that the Electoral Commission has a great deal of scope for taking any measures it thinks necessary and expedient.
	I will dwell again on what the noble Lord has said. We are not saying different things—we both know what we want, which is the same thing. We are talking about means to an end and to reduce any scope for creating a perception of bias or actual bias. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Provision of information to voters]:
	[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) The information to be provided under subsection (2) shall include a statement by the Secretary of State with regard to which powers (if any) would be transferred from local government to the assembly."

Baroness Hamwee: In tabling Amendment No. 66, I slightly extend a point we have discussed. I hope that the Minister can give the Committee an assurance that in the information to be provided, to which we have referred extensively, the powers to be transferred from local government to the assembly—if there are any, and we hope that there will not be—will be specifically mentioned. I beg to move—and I have done so in under one minute.

Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment. It seeks to enlarge on what the regional assemblies will do. Several times in Committee we have been promised that we will know before too long—that there will be a draft Bill or some literature setting out the powers of regional assemblies. I hope that the amendment will draw out some of the proposals.

Lord Rooker: Sorry, there is nothing to draw out. The give-away in the amendment is in the last few words about,
	"which powers (if any) would be transferred from local government to the assembly".
	The Government do not intend to transfer any powers from local government to elected assemblies, so we do not need the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: We have had this debate before and it is important that we are given clarification of the point. It is said that no powers whatever are passing from local government to the assembly, and we take that on face value. However, some powers, such as housing—the only example we have been given in this Chamber—are to be transferred to the assembly. Given that district and borough councils are concerned and that some aspect of housing is the function of county councils, how on earth can regional assemblies have an influence in and responsibility for housing matters if that is not to come from local authorities?

Lord Rooker: No statutory powers which local authorities currently have in respect of housing are to be transferred to the elected assembly. That is the long and short of the matter. On other matters we are trying to look at policy on a regional basis and we have made that clear in the sustainable communities plan. They are not dependent on this Bill, nor on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. They are related to the internal structuring of government with the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships and the way in which HIP allocations are dealt with so that we can look regionally at the strategy for housing. But no statutory powers on housing are being transferred from local authorities. No powers are being transferred from local authorities to the regional assemblies.
	The noble Baroness might ask what it is all worth. That is for others to ask and answer, as I have repeatedly made clear. There will be no new powers, no new money and no new tiers.

Baroness Blatch: I shall take the noble Lord straight back to Second Reading and earlier debates on the Bill. I asked whether he could name a power which would transfer to the regional assemblies which was free-standing, which was not now held by another body and which the regional assemblies would have. The noble Lord said that he could do so immediately, and named housing. But district councils have the responsibility for housing, as do county councils under their planning functions, until they lose them.
	I am looking at Box 4.l on page 37 of the White Paper. Sustainable development is referred to in Box 4.1 on page 36 of the White Paper. If you go to Kent County Council, for example, and to some of the other county councils around the country, they will tell you that they have responsibilities for sustainable development. So what will be the role of the regional assemblies in that regard?
	If you go to some of the larger county councils, you will find that they also have responsibility for economic development. Skills and employment are matters for county councils, the learning and skills councils and the sector schools councils, so what is the role of the regional assemblies? What is the relationship between spatial planning and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill which will shortly be before the House? What particular role will the assemblies play in transport? Waste management is definitely a matter for county councils and for some district councils. As regards health improvement, how will the regional authorities dovetail in with the 10-year plan for the National Health Service? The responsibility for culture, including tourism, belongs in other bodies, as does the issue of biodiversity.
	What will these bodies do? Regional development agencies, sector schools councils, learning and skills councils, regional offices, county councils and district councils all have a role now and we are told that they will all still exist once the regional assemblies are established. So, although this looks like a rather inoffensive, small amendment, it is actually very important. What will these assemblies do?
	We all have respect for the Minister, but for him to simply say to us, "That is for you to determine" is no answer. At the end of the line, if people vote for them, the Bill will trigger the establishment of regional assemblies. If the Minister cannot tell Parliament what they will do— what they will stand for and what will be their powers and functions—how on earth will the public make sense of it?

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness is introducing red herrings. Box 4.1 states:
	"An elected regional assembly will be responsible for regional strategies dealing with the following issues".
	It does not refer to "service delivery"; it does not refer to "statutory functions"; it refers to "regional strategies". We have made it abundantly clear from day one that that is what the White Paper is all about and that is what we have said.
	I gave an honest answer at Second Reading in regard to housing. There will be a housing function carried out at regional level, but the existing statutory functions held by local authorities will remain with them. This relates to the internal workings of government and the way in which the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships operate. They are nothing to do with local authorities. They are central government delivery units, if you like—quangos in other words. It concerns the way in which central government seeks to allocate funds, particularly in regard to the housing investment programme, on a regional basis.
	But it will still be for the local authorities to carry out their statutory functions. Housing will become a regional issue but not in terms of the delivery of the statutory functions of local authorities. There is a difference, but it is not covered by the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: The amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that the powers are at least spelled out ahead of any referendum.
	Going back to the issue of housing, the Minister will know that I wrote to the department following a Statement in the House about the new housing that is to be built around the country. I asked what role the regional assemblies would have in deciding where the houses should be built because the Government have predetermined that the area between Stansted airport and the East End of London shall be covered in houses. I discovered that that is a matter for the Government. Housing associations have their area of responsibility and district and county councils have theirs, so will the Minister please tell the Committee what the regional assemblies will be able to determine? If they are not able to determine anything, they will become glorified talking shops. They either will or will not be established with a purpose and powers to do something. If not, what on earth is the debate all about?

Lord Rooker: That is the most extravagant language I have heard. It is deliberately misleading to say that the land from Stansted to Cambridge to London will be covered in housing. That is absolutely preposterous and the noble Baroness is intelligent enough to know it. It is designated as a growth area. The amount of land that we will take for the extra housing will be infinitesimal; it will be in single digit percentages. To talk about the land being covered in housing is ridiculous. The noble Baroness must know that from the figures we have published in the sustainable communities plan. It will be properly delivered through vehicles such as urban regeneration companies, the local authorities involved, and sometimes the UDC. It depends. Those discussions are ongoing. But the use of such extravagant language, frankly, destroys the rest of the noble Baroness's argument. I repeat: no statutory powers are being taken from local government to give to the regional assemblies—which makes the amendment unnecessary.

Baroness Blatch: I should like the noble Lord to hear what the people around the Stansted area, in the swathe of green land that extends down to the East End of London, have to say about the new housing. The Minister might like to mention the figure for the housing that will be built in that area.
	Even that side-steps the point. Even if I have exaggerated in the way that the Minister says, he has still not answered the key question: what will the regional assemblies be able to determine in the areas set out in paragraph 4.1 of the White Paper? If they have no powers from local authorities, and no powers from national government, what are they there to do; what will their powers be; and what will they be free to determine that is not the policy of central government or that of local authorities?

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness continues deliberately to talk up the regional assemblies. Frankly, that is disingenuous. She is talking up the organisations that she does not want to exist. I am deliberately not talking them down, but going out of my way to make it clear that the Government are not misleading anyone. There will be no new powers, and no new money. The noble Baroness may not like that. She can talk all she likes about the powers that they will have. They will have the powers of democratic scrutiny of those working on a regional basis, from the Government Offices to other organisations. They will not be service delivery organisations. We have said that. It is nothing new.
	So it is no use going on about what new powers the regional assemblies will have. They will not have any new powers. They will have the power of democratic scrutiny of a level of government that is operating now in the regions by and large, as we have set out, in a way that is not subject to democratic scrutiny—because they have objective action, this House does not do it and it is not a local government function. We think it important that they should have that.
	There will be different issues relating to the boards that become regional planning boards for special strategy, but that is dealt with in another Bill; it is not dependent on this Bill. So I repeat: the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which will come before this House in due course, is not dependent on this Bill passing into law in the sense of having elected regional assemblies. So the amendment is a complete red herring. The noble Baroness is using extravagant language about the growth area, and it is grossly misleading of her to do so.

Baroness Blatch: This is positively my last word on this amendment. I shall continue to use the language that I have used. If the regional assemblies are nothing, if they are simply talking-shops with no new powers and no new money, why are we here debating them? Why must a very high price be paid for them; namely, a major upheaval in local government in order to establish them?
	It is not true to say that the assemblies will have no new money. They will have precepting powers; and if that is the case they can obtain more money. We have seen that with the GLA. It has managed to get a good deal more money out of local taxpayers. The Minister is admitting that they will have powers of scrutiny, but so does the Audit Commission, so does the National Audit Office. When a body has powers of scrutiny, it has powers to do something about what it finds as a result of the scrutiny. We shall return to this point on another day, in other ways. In responding, will the Minister tell us what powers the regional assemblies will have, having exercised their powers of scrutiny, if they find what they have scrutinised to be at fault?

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness uses a dangerous example; namely, the National Audit Office. She referred also to the Public Accounts Committee. They do not scrutinise policy. They look at where the tax pounds are going and at whether we are getting value for money. The perfect example is that Ministers do not appear before the Public Accounts Committee. That is not the function of the committee. It is not looking at policy; that is decided elsewhere. Policy is the role of government, the House and support. The PAC is looking at value for taxpayers' pounds. The Audit Commission is looking at matters in a slightly different way, in terms of the local government level, because people get confused between the two bodies. The scrutiny by the assemblies will be quite different. It will vary according to the function the assemblies are considering because they will be new bodies. Small groups of people, between 25 and 35, will be working in large regions of between 2 million to 6 million people. The assemblies will look at the best way of scrutinising and bringing to democratic account the people who are making decisions on a regional basis about strategy, not their service delivery.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can the Minister answer a short question? If the assemblies are to have no further powers and they are simply there as scrutinising bodies, why do they want precepting powers? If they are not going to do anything more, why do they want more money with which to do it? Why do they want precepting powers?

Lord Waddington: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, because I was about to make very much the same point. The Minister is most eloquent, and I am impressed by his argument. His argument is simple: we have nothing to worry about because the Bill is pointless. I have served in Parliament for a certain amount of time and have seen plenty of pointless Bills. I have seen firearms legislation go through Parliament to meet a perceived threat, and it has achieved nothing. I have seen dog-biting legislation go through Parliament to meet a perceived threat, and it has achieved nothing.
	The Bill is unique in that the Minister says that it will do nothing. If I were absolutely sure of that, I would go home to bed early, but I have a feeling there must be a snag somewhere.

Lord Rooker: I am getting really worried now. It must be firmly placed on the record that I did not say what was attributed to me. This is an excellent Bill; it is full of good ideas and good clauses. It is well thought out and has been carefully scrutinised in your Lordships' House. At the end of the day, the electorate will decide whether they want to proceed down this road. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I cannot give him the detailed response he wants; it goes way beyond this amendment. I must try to stick to answering the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would still like to know why, if the assemblies are not going to do anything, they want money to do it.

Baroness Hamwee: I hope that readers of Hansard will apply their own degree of irony to some of these exchanges. I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that this is not big local government, to take us back to day one. I share concerns about what the assemblies will do—all of us on these Benches have made that clear. I do not want to develop the point tonight, but I am concerned that the Minister talked of scrutiny. Of course, that is an important function but the assemblies are to be strategy-making bodies—the White Paper tells us so. We regard strategy as very important. We distinguish it from service delivery and see a very important role for the assemblies in making strategy. That is at the heart of our belief in regional government. Having said that—and we will return to the issue of powers—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Expenditure]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 5, line 8, at end insert "and publishes the Electoral Commission's response"

Baroness Blatch: I can be very brief on this amendment. We have emphasised a number of times accountability and transparency when speaking to previous amendments. This is to do with cost. The Electoral Commission is to be consulted before the Secretary of State can provide funds with which the commission can then cover the expenditure incurred when employing counting officers and setting up the voting process.
	I do not argue with that and I do not argue with the making of the order for expenses to cover the services required. My amendment simply asks that the response of the Electoral Commission should be published. That would make more comprehensive the information that would be made available before the order was approved. It is only right that when taxpayers' money is being spent, the Minister should publish the results of the consultation exercise. That would ensure that the public could be satisfied with the legitimacy of the amounts committed to provide the expenses detailed. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Subsection (3) of Clause 9 requires a Minister of the Crown to consult the Electoral Commission before making an order to make provision for payment by the Electoral Commission of either charges in respect of services rendered or expenses incurred by a counting officer in connection with a referendum held in pursuance of an order to cause a referendum, or the increase in the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority as a consequence of a fee paid as part of a counting officer's charges. Amendment No. 69 would require the Secretary of State to publish the commission's response to this consultation.
	As I said with regard to Amendment No. 59, the Electoral Commission's responses are its own responses. It is independent of the Government, so it decides whether to disclose its responses and whether there should be publication. As it seems to intend to publish any consultation that it might have with the Government, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I believed, perhaps naively, that we were making law in Parliament. It might well be a matter for the Electoral Commission to decide what it shall make public, but we are making law. This is a new Bill, and we can if we wish require that the response should be made public. It is for Parliament to decide whether it should be made public; we can put an obligation in law on the Electoral Commission to publish its findings. At the end of the day, it is your money and my money that is being spent. The public have the right to know what the consultation was and what advice was given.
	I am deeply unhappy about the Minister's response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Page 5, line 11, leave out "No court shall" and insert "A court shall only"

Baroness Blatch: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
	This is an important clause, and I hope that the Minister can give us some cheerier news than we have had to date. The question is whether the courts can be used to challenge the result of a referendum. It seems extraordinary to take a specific power to deny the right to challenge aspects of a referendum.
	When querying the inclusion of the clause in the Bill, I turned to the Explanatory Notes for clarification, but that was hardly what I found. The only argument used is not intellectually valid. The notes suggest that the measure should be approved because the Government have done this before, but precedent is not an answer. We are viewing this Bill on its merits as a new Bill before the House.
	The purpose of the clause is to ban legal challenges to a referendum. The notes state:
	"The inclusion of this clause follows the precedent set by, for example, section 6 of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, section 4 of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 and section 4 of the Referendum Act 1975".
	That last Act was passed 28 years ago, when there was a very different set of circumstances. At that time, a threshold operated, which gave some safeguard as to the volume of support for constitutional change.
	Just because something has been done one way before does not mean that it is impossible to change the procedure. That is especially the case with regard to something with such dramatic constitutional implications. Surely in some circumstances it might be necessary to question the validity of the referendum result. I offer up just such a possibility in Amendment No. 71: that there are allegations of electoral fraud.
	Moreover, I hope that noble Lords took note of the fact that I did not simply propose that the courts have free rein to challenge the results of a referendum. That is effectively what the Liberal Democrats have done with their opposition to the Question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. Although we have put our names to that opposition, I have to say that I prefer the limitations offered in Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 as a more sensible and responsible response: only if allegations of fraud are made through the proper legal channels and within 10 days of the announcement of the result is such a challenge to a referendum result legitimate. That makes it clear that the allegations must be of only the most severe nature—that of electoral fraud. Furthermore, the legal proceedings cannot be initiated unless it is within the first 10 days after the result. That stops any frivolous questioning of the result and also ensures that the result is not questioned when further processes are under way to implement the results of the referendum—for example, the establishment of the assemblies themselves.
	Earlier today, in discussion with one of my colleagues, I was reminded of an incident in Croydon. It was discovered after the event that some of the election papers had not been properly stamped. The returning officer allowed them through and the votes were counted and they were materially crucial to the result of that vote. When they were challenged, the election was rerun. So there are examples.
	I have a technical question for the noble Lord. I have before me a copy of the relevant part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Reading Section 129, I just wonder whether this clause runs counter to what was set out in that Act. I hope that the Minister will concede that some procedure must be available by which legitimate challenges to the result of a referendum may be made through the appropriate legal channels. If not, I would welcome some good reasons why not. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: We have indicated our opposition to the Question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concedes, she and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also oppose the Question. I have done so in an attempt to gain further understanding of the clause. I hope that we can debate whether the clause should stand part now rather than in a later debate.
	In Committee in another place, the Minister said:
	"If a serious situation arose, involving, for example, fraud, and a challenge were made, I am advised that the court could"—
	he said "could"—
	"argue that a fully valid certificate had never truly existed and that, therefore, the court had the right to intervene".
	He went on to say:
	"The ways of challenging the proceedings set out in clause 5 are clear for the courts to interpret".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 3/12/02; cols. 47-48]
	Even putting aside the rather convoluted approach in that last sentence, I have to say that, reading and rereading the statement—and I freely admit to being no expert in this matter—the position is by no means clear. However, if I understand the Minister in another place aright, there is no need for this clause at all. So I have gone round in a complete circle. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on it.

Lord Rooker: I am not resting my case on the argument that no explanation is necessary because it has been done before. I also accept that the argument in the Explanatory Notes is based exclusively on the fact that it has been done before. Although that is part of the argument, it is not the whole argument.
	I shall probably give a totally inadequate response to this point, which is not straightforward. On the face of it, the clause seems quite onerous. The advice I have corresponds exactly with what Nick Raynsford said in another place; namely, that the clause does not rule out any and every challenge to a referendum result being looked at by the courts. I realise that I am entering a legal minefield here, but notwithstanding the fact that the clause has appeared word for word in five previous pieces of legislation, it has never been challenged in the courts. Therefore, we are in uncharted waters as regards the kind of case the courts would wish to consider. The clause is certainly designed to cut out less serious challenges, for example, a returning officer arguing about the number of ballot papers that were filled in incorrectly even though they did not alter the overall result. Some people might argue that a counting error had still been made. However, we want to avoid such challenges being brought as once a decision is taken on a referendum certain actions need to be taken as quickly as possible.
	Even though the clause as written appears to rule out completely any court considering a result, I am advised by lawyers and my learned friends that an alleged serious error could be challenged in the courts. However, I cannot give an example because so far such a case has not been challenged in the courts. The courts are jealous of guarding their right to consider cases if people complain of an alleged serious error. I cannot conceive of any such circumstances but I am advised that such challenges are not ruled out.
	The clause is included in the Bill—for the same reason it is included in other legislation—to ensure that the Government can respond without delay to referendum results. Court challenges take time. Undue delay could result in difficulties as regards introducing the main Bill to set up the assemblies. As has been said, the previous five referendums took place a long time ago, one in 1975 and two in 1978. However, the two more recent ones in 1997 and 1998 occurred within the lifetime of this Government. It would be for the courts to interpret how any challenge would be dealt with. For example, they would not be prevented from considering a challenge to the certificate of the chief counting officer. As I say, the courts are jealous of their jurisdiction. There is a substantial body of case law in regard to the wording used in the clause but it has not been challenged in the courts in the sense of an ouster clause.
	We recognise that the clause may not prevent all challenges, particularly those of a serious nature, and, indeed, we would not expect it to do so. It would obviously be right for a particularly serious allegation based on sound grounds to be challenged. I was about to refer to a scandal in that regard, but that is casting judgment on an allegation and I do not wish to do that. However, it would be wrong for a serious allegation not to be challenged in the courts. As we do not have a ruling, we do not have a precedent to follow.
	Amendment No. 71 seeks to limit the courts' jurisdiction to those circumstances where the allegations of electoral fraud are made through the appropriate legal channels. We believe that the amendment would be ineffective. We do not know what the legal channels are. I am assured that that is not a legal term and that it could not be inserted into legislation. As I say, we believe that the amendment would be ineffective or at least limited to those circumstances where there is a combination of polls. One could ask what electoral fraud could take place in a referendum. A referendum constitutes an election that takes place at the ballot box in which the wider population takes part. It is not an election involving individual candidates. However, there may still be allegations that fraud has taken place. I cannot conceive of such circumstances and I cannot give examples off the top of my head.
	Amendment No. 72 is a little more "dodgy". It seeks to impose a time limit on the bringing of legal proceedings. That time limit is 10 days from the announcement of the referendum result. The amendment could prevent challenges regardless of whether they are frivolous or serious. Obviously the courts tend to consider time bars to be absolute bars on bringing proceedings. Where there is a time limit, it is less likely that the court would open it up because Parliament has set that time limit. The period for otherwise bringing proceedings would in general terms be three months from the date of the chief counting officer certifying the result. That would be a much wider limit if there were to be a "really serious challenge".
	I hope that Members of the Committee accept that the clause does not prevent serious challenges. There would be less time to bring such challenges if Amendment No. 72 were agreed to. Amendment No. 70 is consequential.
	That may be a completely inadequate response. I have got some really serious legal briefs with me; I do not even know what some of the words mean, but my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General certainly would. If there is such dissatisfaction with the provision at a later stage, I would take advice from him and he might wish to correct my inadequate response himself. I have put on record that we do not see the clause as ruling out all and every challenge. The wording is identical to what has been used in the past. We do not have a legal precedent to go on. We are not trying to stop anyone who has a serious case, and frankly one can give frivolous examples more easily than serious ones. To that extent, my argument is not full.
	Based on what has happened in the past, and with the knowledge that the provision does not completely rule out all challenges of a serious nature, because the courts would certainly look at them, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: Big words or no big words, used or not, the advice that the Minister has received is not as learned as I would expect. The Bill states:
	"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum".
	It does not say anything about frivolous or not-frivolous cases, or exclude very serious claims. So far as I am concerned, the words are plain and mean that there cannot be a challenge. I do not care how learned the people who advise the Minister are. Those words do not mean what he believes that he has been advised they mean. The Bill does not allow for any case.
	The Minister made no comment on Sections 128 and 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and whether the clause runs counter to them. He said that he was worried about delays and that the reason for the method proposed in the Bill is so that things can be got on with without delay. However, if there are grounds for a very serious challenge, I am afraid that there will have to be a delay until the challenge is addressed—but it cannot be addressed.

Lord Rooker: Well, I said it could be. The noble Baroness must either accept what I have said or not. The fact is that there is good case law and evidence around, but no case in court to test it. The advice is, notwithstanding the words in the Bill, that the courts could—they jealously guard their rights anyway—look at a most serious challenge and allegation. I know that the words do not say that and look as though they rule it out, but the advice is that the courts would still be able to look at the most serious challenge to the certificate granted by the chief officer. That is exactly what my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General would say if he were here.

Baroness Blatch: The Bill does not state that a court will entertain serious proceedings or proceedings that are not vexatious, but that,
	"No court shall entertain any proceedings".
	So long as those words remain in the Bill, there cannot be a challenge. If the Minister says that there can be, he must point me to the part of the Bill that states that courts can entertain serious challenges. I simply do not accept the advice that has been given.
	The noble Lord went on to say that there has never been such a case. I believe that I gave him an example of a case in which some of the ballot papers had not been stamped. Although they were allowed through on the night, the gap between the winner and the loser was such that the papers were crucial. When a challenge was made, the election had to be re-run. Therefore, there is at least one example of an election where the challenge was allowed and where it was borne out and upheld.
	The noble Lord added that only serious challenges should be acceptable. As I said, because the court cannot accept any challenge or any proceedings, I do not know what the noble Lord means by that. But my amendments address the whole issue of vexatious challenges. Amendment No. 71 seeks to amend the Bill to state that the court shall entertain any proceedings only,
	"if allegations of electoral fraud are made through the appropriate legal channels".
	In other words, there must be evidence of fraud in order for the court to do so.
	With regard to the time limit referred to in Amendment No. 72, first, the noble Lord says that that could prevent more charges, irrespective of frivolous or serious claims. The noble Lord himself has ruled out frivolous claims, and I have ruled out frivolous and vexatious claims through my amendment. Therefore, that is not an issue here. However, if the noble Lord is concerned that 10 days is too short a period, I shall happily come back at the next stage of the Bill with the three-month time limit suggested by him.
	I believe we agree that if there is to be a challenge, the period during which it can be made should not be open-ended and last for months and months. It should be possible to make the challenge within a reasonable time following the election. Therefore, so long as Clause 10 contains the words:
	"No court shall entertain any proceedings",
	I shall not be convinced that serious proceedings can be entertained by the court.

Lord Waddington: Before the Minister replies, can he help me on one point? I have just been observing the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and I wonder whether he is cross, anxious or bored. Can he help us?

Lord Rooker: . There was also a case in 1981 involving Racal Communications, which, I believe, will be found AC[374]. Therefore, some case law does exist but no ouster clause of this kind has ever been considered by the courts, and that is a problem.
	On the other hand, the advice is that the clause would not be construed by the courts to have its literal meaning. As a non-lawyer, I know that this is a difficult issue. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a lawyer, but I am assured by the best legal brains in Whitehall that the clause would not be construed by the courts to have its literal meaning. There are many reasons for that. I could give a long speech and provide details but that would not change the noble Baroness's view. I believe that she will probably have to reflect on the matter now that I have pointed her in the direction of some case law to read.
	I know that the wording in the Bill does not look right but it is exactly the same as in other Acts of Parliament. None has gone to court and therefore we do not have a view about the courts. But it is believed that, notwithstanding the wording, the clause does not rule out the possibility of the courts considering the most serious challenges. They are free to do that. That is the situation. The noble Baroness may not accept that and she may want to test the opinion of the House. I invite her to do so because I cannot give a further or better explanation.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We admire the Minister so much. That explanation was so expert that one is almost prepared to believe it. As an ordinary person all I can do is to read what it says in the Bill:
	"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum",
	and so on. You cannot get away from that. The Minister sounds like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four who said that words mean what he said they mean. That simply is not good enough for legislation. I wish a Law Lord were present as it would be useful to have an opinion. The Minister has not convinced me that the clause is necessary. It may well be dangerous.

Baroness Blatch: I have heard it all now. I wonder what we are doing in this Chamber. I have always believed that the words on the page literally mean what they say. If we are told, "Believe me, I am the Minister, and I have had advice from very learned people that what you see on the page is not what the words mean, but"—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—"the words mean what we say they mean", that is not an answer and I do not accept it.

Lord Elton: I have been longing to join in this debate. If the words in the Bill do not mean what they say, surely words should be found that mean what the Government intend. Could we have words that say what the Government intend so that people like the noble Lord and myself, who are not lawyers, can understand what they mean so that we do not have to pay vast amounts of money to lawyers to tell us what they mean?

Baroness Blatch: I say "hear, hear" to that. The serious point about the amendment is that when we in the Westminster village have finished with the Bill, Joe Public will have to interpret it. The public will have to make sense of what it means. If at the end of the day we say, "Do not worry about reading the words on the page, the Minister says that they mean something else and when it says that no court shall entertain any proceedings, do not believe that because they will entertain some proceedings as long as the proceedings are serious because that is what the lawyers advise". If that is the lawyers' advice, the Bill should state that. We shall certainly return to this matter.

Baroness Hamwee: I seek to persuade the noble Baroness not to divide the Committee on this point. It is so serious that one will want to read the debate.

Baroness Blatch: This discussion will make some of the best bedtime reading that we have had in a long time. I shall not deny anyone the opportunity to read the debate and reflect on it for the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Supplementary]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 5, line 20, at end insert ", except that no different provisions may be made under subsection (2) in relation to different parts of the United Kingdom in the event of two referendums being held on the same day"

Baroness Hanham: In moving Amendment No. 73 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74 standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, myself and my noble friend Lady Blatch. The amendments refer to two subsections in Clause 11 which introduce the supplementary powers in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. According to the Explanatory Notes, subsection (1),
	"will have effect so that if there is provision in, or made under, Part 1 for or in connection with regulating the conduct of referendums under the Bill, section 129(3) of the PPER Act does not prevent an order made under section 129(1) of that Act applying to referendums under the Bill".
	Subsection (2), according to the Explanatory Notes,
	"clarifies that this will be the case in respect of any order under section 129(1) of the PPER Act, whenever made".
	That is in the Explanatory Notes.
	It is all too easy to accept these rather complicated supplementary matters without looking at them or challenging them. What is their practical effect?
	Subsection (1) effectively guarantees a power to the Secretary of State to regulate the conduct of referendums. Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State the facility to exercise that power even before the passing of the Act.
	I appreciate the need for flexibility that Clause 11(1) provides in allowing the Minister to make regulations concerning the conduct of referendums. That flexibility is in line with the provisions in the PPER Act. However, the circumstances of the holding of referendums in the Bill bring in a slightly different element, for which the Act does not make allowance since at that time it was not foreseen. I am talking about the possibility that there might be two referendums on the same day. We have discussed the issue in previous amendments. It would be unlikely by all accounts, but it is important to have on the face of the Bill the assurance that the Minister may not regulate the conduct of referendums held on the same day in such a way that they are conducted differently.
	In general, I support the principle that referendums concerning regional assemblies should be conducted on a universal model or procedure. After all, they propose the establishment of the same institutions, just in different parts of the country. Procedural or regulatory comparisons might spawn a wealth of complaints about unfair differentiation on the grounds of location. It would undermine the validity of the outcome if it were claimed that the electoral procedure had been conducted in a different way.
	Amendment No. 74 is a probing amendment. I fail to see how it can be "immaterial" if this power is exercised before or after the passing of the Act. It is surely of the utmost relevance. We meet this particular subsection (2) later in Clause 12(7). It is confusing—or perhaps I am missing the point—that a direction, power or provision which is detailed in the Bill may be exercised before the Bill becomes an Act. I should welcome clarification from the Minister on that point.

Baroness Hamwee: In Amendment No. 74, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Blatch, I too was seeking to understand what subsection (2) means. It states:
	"It is immaterial whether the power is exercised before of after the passing of this Act".
	Does,
	"exercised before . . . the passing of this Act",
	mean that it is proper for the Act to ratify something retrospectively? What is being or is to be done which would not be authorised in the absence of the Act? Do the words,
	"exercised ... after the passing of this Act",
	have any significance? Naturally, a power provided by the Act can be exercised after it is passed, subject obviously to the date of commencement.

Lord Rooker: Again, I think I have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the amendments and for this part of the Bill. I was waiting for one of the noble Baronesses to say, "We have looked at the Notes on Clauses and there is nothing on Clause 11". So I shall say that.
	It will take a little while, but I want to explain how this part of the Bill is intended to work. It is not quite as the noble Baronesses think. Clause 11(1) and (2) relate to Section 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As Members of the Committee are aware, that Act makes general provision for UK, national and regional referendums. Section 129 gives the Secretary of State a power to make provision by order for, or in connection with, regulating the conduct of such referendums. I shall refer to that as the "conduct section". I can give details later.
	The Lord Chancellor's Department, which has policy responsibility for the generic legislation on referendums, is currently preparing a draft order under the conduct section. That is intended to provide a generic framework to regulate the conduct of referendums. Drafts of the order have been the subject of discussion in the Electoral Commission's regional referendums working group, and the Lord Chancellor's Department hopes to extend that to wider consultation in the new year—the new year being now.
	The Lord Chancellor's Department's consultation will take time to complete and it will then want seriously to consider the responses. So I cannot say precisely when the generic conduct order will be made and, of course, we cannot predict exactly when the Bill will be enacted. The generic conduct order could come first by a little way, or the Bill may just reach the statute book first. I simply do not know. Clause 11(2) is simply designed to ensure that the generic conduct order that I have just described would apply to referendums on elected assemblies, even if that order were made before Royal Assent of the Bill.
	If Amendment No. 74 were accepted there would be doubt as to whether a conduct order made before enactment of the Bill would apply to a referendum under the Bill. The 2000 Act, which is the main Act in this regard, has of course been in force for several years and the power in Section 129(1) of that Act is exercisable now. We want to ensure that relevant conduct orders about referendums made now will apply to referendums under the Bill.
	It is as simple as that. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation. In other words, it is not—I repeat, not—retrospective legislation. The legislative power exists now. The process is under way and it makes sense for the avoidance of doubt for the conduct order to apply to every referendum, including those that may be held under the Bill.
	Amendment No. 73 is intended to ensure that the same arrangements would apply to the conduct of all referendums that are regulated by an order under Section 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and held on the same day, wherever they are held in the United Kingdom. I can reassure the noble Baronesses that the Government's broad approach will be to have as uniform a set of rules as appropriate governing all referendums under the Bill and all referendums that fall within Part VII of the 2000 Act.
	Indeed, as I said, the Lord Chancellor's Department is in the process of producing a generic conduct order covering not only conduct of referendums on elected assemblies but conduct of all other referendums under the 2000 Act. In fact, that generic conduct order would apply equally to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as to England. The draft order will be laid before Parliament, and the making of such an order is, by the way, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses.
	However, we need to retain the flexibility to make different provision for the referendums that would be held under the Bill. There is nothing sinister about that. For example, we may need to make provision under Section 129(1) for voting to be all-postal—I said may—for one referendum or set of referendums. Indeed, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 would already allow for that in Section 156(5).
	For the avoidance of doubt, because I will be hauled over the coals if I do not and because it may avoid lots of further questions, let me answer the question: what will the conduct order cover. That is a basic question, so I want to put a few basics on record for our future deliberations.
	The generic conduct of referendums order will apply provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and regulations on elections to the administration of a referendum poll, as well as making completely new provision. The following list is not exclusive, but it will cover measures such as: basic forms and ballot papers; appointment of presiding officers and clerks at polling stations; powers of the police; conduct of the referendum in the polling station—in other words, what equipment must be provided and provision of assistance to disabled voters; notices to be displayed in polling stations; rules for polling agents covering attendance at the polling station otherwise than for the purpose of voting; procedures for the counting of votes and declaration of the result; rules for the safekeeping of the ballot papers; timetable for publication of notices of referendums; and provision for absent voting; hours of polling; and the duties of all the officers concerned.
	Such material will be included in generic conduct orders, which will be fairly widespread. It is not being done because of the Bill; it would be done whether or not the Bill existed. I hope that it makes the position much clearer and gives a decent explanation of the otherwise unclear parts of Clause 11.

Baroness Hamwee: It is a pity if legislation that clearly applies must be ratified—I do not use that term technically—by being referred to in subsequent legislation. The more often one says that a provision in a previous Act applies when it clearly does, the more one casts doubt on the applicability of other provisions not referred to. I make the point because much of our legislation is complicated. Sometimes it is more straightforward not to say anything.

Baroness Hanham: I agree. It would be helpful if we could see the draft order. It may be being consulted upon, but I presume that it is available even to Peers. May we see the draft conduct order before Report stage? I am not sure why it should not be referred to in the Bill if it will be part of legislation. The whole supplementary section seems to add confusion. Even after the Minister's response, it is not clear how the system will operate. I shall withdraw the amendment for the moment.

Lord Rooker: I shall ask about the availability of the draft order. I do not have a precise day-to-day timetable. But, if the drafts have been discussed by the Electoral Commission's regional referendums working group—I do not know the acronym for it—and there is a proposal to carry out wider consultation, I shall do my best to ensure that a draft is available. I do not know whether it will be the draft that is ready for consultation.
	On the noble Baroness's second point, I suspect that it falls foul of one of the golden rules of parliamentary counsel—never legislate for the same thing twice in two different Bills, even if the words are the same. The scope for doubt and problems in the courts is enormous. The provision is not included in the Bill because it is already covered in another Act.

Baroness Hanham: We are back to transparency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Local government review]:
	[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]

Baroness Cox: If Amendment No. 77 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 78 because of pre-emption.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Page 6, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak also to the other Liberal Democrat amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. They are also grouped with the Conservative amendments, Amendments Nos. 78 and 81.
	These are probing amendments to help us to understand more of what is going on in Clause 12. They would remove subsections (2) to (4). Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State must consider the level of interest in the holding of a referendum. It defies belief that the soundings could really be about interest in holding a referendum, as distinct from a wish to have an assembly. Three days—four days, including Second Reading—of debate in the House have done nothing to alter that fact. The language used by all noble Lords, including me, in the debate last Thursday confused those two issues. If we are having difficulty maintaining the distinction, it is impossible to believe that those responding to the soundings exercise have been able to maintain it. Would the Government instigate a referendum if they thought that the answer would be "No"?
	The Conservatives have added their names to Amendment No. 79. Subsection (3) provides that the Secretary of State can consider differences in the level of interest in different regions. I do not understand what that adds to subsection (2). Perhaps the Minister can help me. Why does it say "may consider", rather than "must consider"? Is that simply a matter of the style of drafting? If the provision is permissive, rather than mandatory, I will be even more confused.
	Amendment No. 80 would leave out subsection (4), which provides:
	"For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) the Secretary of State must"—
	"must" rather than "may"—
	"consider—
	(a) views expressed and information and evidence provided to him;
	(b) such published material as he thinks appropriate".
	Can the Minister tell us what amounts to "evidence" for that purpose and what is "published material"? Why is the material limited by the adjective "published"? Is the reference intended to mean academic and similar material? If so, why limit "views expressed" to those "provided" to the Secretary of State? Cannot he be expected to be aware of all views? Is the soundings exercise limited to formal responses? If so, why is "published material" not within that defined and confined group? I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 78 and 81 stand in my name, and I have added my name to Amendment No. 79.
	I shall not cover too much of the ground that has already been covered, but I want to return to the Explanatory Notes. After all, they are meant to explain. The notes say:
	"For various reasons it may not be appropriate for directions to be given in relation to two or more regions at the same time. In this case, the Secretary of State may wish to take various factors into account in deciding in relation to which region or regions (if any) he should give a direction.
	"It is a precondition to the giving of a direction in relation to any region that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in that region in the holding of a referendum . . . But in a situation where two or more regions are under consideration for a local government review, it may be that the Secretary of State will want to compare the levels of interest in the holding of a referendum in those different regions. Hence subsection (3) of clause 12".
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, implied, that explanation is dangerously vague and needs some practical details to flesh it out. Several important and pertinent questions immediately emerge. As the noble Baroness asked, how will the Secretary of State weigh up the level of interest? For what "various reasons" might the Secretary of State decide it to be inappropriate to hold a referendum in two regions? What factors would he take into account when deciding which region would prevail? We have been given no answers to those points. They seem to be left to the whim of the Secretary of State.
	The three amendments seek to rectify the situation. Amendment No. 78 provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied by the double condition that the majority in the region favour a referendum, and that if a referendum were held, then an elected assembly would result. The Minister will, no doubt, reply that the whole point of a referendum is to test the level of interest in having a regional assembly. However, we see the situation in a slightly different way. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the sounding exercises and so will I. Great concern has been expressed in our debates so far about who has been consulted. Today, I am taken aback more, having read that the Minister in the other place seems to be satisfied that he has had 4,500 replies. That seems to be a very small number on which to make any judgment. My noble friend Lady Blatch voiced all our fears when she spoke about the soundings issue during the first day in Committee. There was greater concern that replying to the soundings exercise by saying one was against a regional assembly might be registered as showing an interest. The Minister assured us that this would not be the case. However, the principle is similar in relation to Clause 12.
	People like to be given the opportunity to vote; that is, to register their approval or disapproval of what is proposed. Just because many people favour a referendum is no guarantee that they may vote in favour and therefore support the establishment of an elected assembly. The Secretary of State should not give an order for the Boundary Committee to start with a local government review only because there is interest in a referendum, but instead, if he thinks that the interest is such that a majority would favour the establishment of regional assemblies.
	Amendment No. 81 focuses on the gathering of information regarding the level of interest in the general consultation process. We are told what the Secretary of State should consider for the purposes subsection (2). The amendment stresses that he must first identify which bodies should be consulted before registering their level of interest. This draws attention to the fact that the consultation process is by no means standardised. Amendment No. 79 is a probing amendment. Would the Minister clarify why a referendum could not be held on one day in two different regions, and how the Secretary of State should make a judgment between the two regions? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I may be wrong, but I am treating all these amendments as probing. I regret that the answers are going to be what I have given in other parts of the Bill. The amendments are pretty wide. To remove subsections (2), (3) and (4) from Clause 12 would take out a large chunk. Those subsections set out how the Secretary of State must consider the level of interest in a region—and the differences in the level of interest between regions—before deciding whether to order a local government review. We think that these sections are essential to the Bill. That will only become apparent, once the analysis of the soundings has taken place, and my right honourable friend forms a judgment on how it would work in practice. I have said repeatedly that he will be required to give explanations as to why he has made his decisions. We will have to be subject to scrutiny over how the judgment was arrived at. It cannot be done on a hunch, or a whim.
	First, we do not intend to direct local government reviews where there is no appetite for a referendum. It naturally follows that that will not be necessary. We do not have a secret plan for local government reorganisation under the guise of this Bill. I have said before that no referendum means no local government review. A "No" vote in a referendum would not lead to the local government plans taking place that had been before the public.
	The effect of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State was able to take account only of some or all of the factors set out in subsection (5) because subsections (2), (3) and (4) would have gone. Those include the effects of what he believes the carrying out of the local government review would have on the relevant local authorities, the district and county councils in the regions, and also the resources needed by the Boundary Committee to carry out the reviews.
	It cannot be right that the Secretary of State cannot take account of whether people in the region want a referendum or not. In subsection (3) there is reference to two or more regions. I must repeat that Ministers have not had access to the soundings, which are still being analysed. We will not make the announcement until after Royal Assent, but the resources of the Boundary Committee are not infinitesimal. If the view was that in two or more regions it looked as though there were sufficient positive interest in a referendum, the Secretary of State must be in a position to say that the resources to conduct the boundary reviews—they could take nine months to a year for each region—cannot be expanded to review all the regions which might have expressed a positive interest in a referendum. Those reviews might take longer and none would be completed in the time available.
	The Secretary of State would need to ask whether there were regions which had a more positive interest than others. If there were, he might say, "We will go for those and park the others, even though there was a positive interest". That is why he needs to check the level of the interest. There are eight regions and the resources would not be available if every region came up in the soundings. I give an extreme example to illustrate how ridiculous it would be. If every region showed positive soundings to have a referendum, it would not be possible to say, "OK, the boundary review starts on all the regions in the country at the same time". A choice would have to be made about the direction to take so that effective action could be taken; that is, to make a judgment about the most popular within the resources of the boundary review.
	That is why subsection (3) is important. The Secretary of State will have to publish information on how he makes his judgment and people will check against the matrix of views. They will be able to say, "You should have issued more directions according to the level of interest", and to force his hand when he knows the review capacity does not exist. He needs to be able to make a judgment between the regions where there is a positive interest in a referendum.

Baroness Hanham: Will the Minister be kind enough to confirm that on the soundings exercise there were two questions? The first tested out the level of interest in the respondent and the second asked their views on whether other regions might be interested. Will he also confirm to me what was reported in the newspaper yesterday: that in the whole country there have been only 4,500 responses to the soundings exercise? How on earth will the Minister make a decision?

Lord Rooker: All that will be known in due course. It will not be done in secret. I did not see the reports yesterday, but I have seen figures showing that 4,000 plus have been analysed. They are still coming in and we have stated that we will take account of what is said during the passage of the Bill. We had to have a date to bring order into the matter, which is why 3rd March was chosen. Anything that conforms with the soundings exercise must be taken into consideration. That is only right and proper, particularly while the Bill is before Parliament. Even the public can see that the Bill is before Parliament so debate has not closed down. Clearly it has not closed down.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he confirm that, on whatever basis the Secretary of State makes his decision and however inadequate we may consider it to be—or, more importantly, the public may consider it to be—there is nothing we can do about it? Once the Bill has gained Royal Assent it will be a purely academic exercise. It will be for the Secretary of State, who has absolute power, to determine whether or not a referendum shall take place in one or more regions of the country. People may be able to take a view about the evidence when it is published, but they will have no power to do anything about it.

Lord Rooker: The Secretary of State cannot act unreasonably or irrationally when reaching a conclusion. He must have an evidence base for his decision, otherwise he will be subject to judicial review about the way in which he made it. So it is not true to say that the final decision will be the end of the line; it will have to be taken in a proper fashion.
	My great handicap, which I freely admit—Ministers in another place laboured under the same handicap—is that until we have an analysis of the soundings exercise it will not be possible to give chapter and verse of the way in which the Secretary of State will make his judgment. I admit that. It is a handicap. I wish that I could read out a checklist against which the decision could be measured. But I will be able to do that only at the time he announces his judgment and the basis on which he has made it. I cannot do that and I cannot second guess the issue for him.
	Amendment No. 81 would require the Secretary of State actively to seek views, information, evidence and published material for the purpose of determining the level of interest in the region. We have since last year been actively seeking the views of people in the regions through the soundings exercise. The noble Baronesses may seek to belittle the number of views we have received but we need to analyse their contents. We want to publish as much information as possible—we told people that when we were undertaking the soundings exercise—and we have invited individuals and organisations in each region to submit their views. Organisations may have submitted views based on their own consultations with wider groups of representative individuals, so there may have been more than 4,500 replies. A number of opinion polls and surveys are still being logged and it may well be a higher number. We have not finished the process.
	It is still only three weeks since the end of the formal part of the soundings and it is not yet possible to give any information. I regret that it is not possible because the more and better information I have will add more certainty to our debates and make it easier for me to answer questions. But I cannot answer them at the present time, not in the way they have been asked anyway.

Lord Greaves: Is not the Minister telling the Committee that the Secretary of State will decide which regions he wants to go ahead with and then invent the criteria to fit? If that is not the case, why can he not give the criteria now.

Lord Rooker: I refute that suggestion completely. It is a frivolous point to make at this time of night. The Minister will have to go to the Commons, where he will be subjected to scrutiny, and he will have to publish the basis on which he makes his judgment. It will be easy to tell whether there has been a fiddle or a prejudgment of the case. If there was any doubt, I am sure that my right honourable friend would receive legal advice from his department not to proceed in that fashion. He has not the slightest intention of doing so; he wants to act completely honourably. But I cannot give the Committee the criteria on which he will make his judgment, other than his view of the level of interest for or against a referendum in each region.

Lord Greaves: The Secretary of State will either have objective criteria or he will not. If he does have objective criteria, why can he not announce in advance what they will be?

Lord Rooker: Because his judgment will be based on, among other things, the soundings exercise that has been undertaken. That is the answer. It is not possible to draw up a specific list in the way requested by the noble Lord. We have gone through a process. We did not want to invent something from the start. I know some people may believe that the soundings exercise was inadequate and that some noble Lords missed out when the document was circulated, but one cannot deny that we distributed the soundings document to an impressive list of organisations. They will have had a view on it. Their views are important because they are the establishment within the regions; they are the opinion formers; they make things happen and know what went wrong in the past. We wanted their views, not on whether there would be a "Yes" or "No" vote or whether there should be an elected regional assembly, but on the likelihood of people wanting a referendum on the issue. I cannot state that any more clearly. I repeat that it is about the desire to have or not have a referendum, not to pre-judge the view on whether to have an elected regional assembly.

Baroness Hanham: I do not have the form in front of me, but my recollection is that only two main questions were asked in the soundings exercise. One was: what is your level of interest in a regional assembly? There were five possible responses: very interested; interested; marginally interested; uninterested; not interested at all. The second question was: have you any idea what anyone thinks in any other region?.
	We are talking about the Deputy Prime Minister making rational judgments against rational criteria. There are no criteria. There are five levels of interest, and the question about the other regions. I do not think we need get too bound up with the sophistication of this exercise. If the Deputy Prime Minister comes back with anything more sophisticated, one is going to have to say: where did he cook these ones up from? That is all that is in the soundings exercise paper, as I recall, and that is all that people were asked.

Lord Rooker: In that case, what is the problem?

Baroness Hamwee: One of the problems that I still have, leaving aside the approach of the Deputy Prime Minister, is whether those responding to the soundings exercise have been able to distinguish between the questions: "Are you interested in having a referendum?" and "Are you interested in having an assembly?". I retain that concern. I do not think that the Minister—and it is not his fault—will be able to give a satisfactory answer to that question.
	This is probably not the time to test this amendment. An earlier amendment that I had tabled was pre-empted by agreement to a previous one.
	I do not believe that deleting subsection (2) would mean that the Secretary of State could not give a direction. On subsection (3), I shall read the Minister's response, but it was not my intention to raise an issue about Boundary Committee resources. I was concerned about the difference between "may" and "must". I am still lost on that point.
	The Minister has told us the number of responses that were not in the form of the pro forma which have been returned. I do not know whether he is able to tell us now, but I hope that, when the Secretary of State comes to report on the matter, he will be able to include not only the number of responses but the number of forms that were sent out. One must judge the level of interest, in part, by the level of response. Judging by the Minister's expression, that is not a matter that we can pursue now.
	I think we have to leave hanging the question: will the Government go ahead with a referendum if they think that they might lose? That is still a big issue in my mind. There is a great deal here to which we may want to return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 78 to 81 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 6, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) the views of businesses in the region, directly and through their representative organisations;"

Baroness Hanham: I find the debate about the soundings somewhat academic. The Bill makes it clear that, for the purpose of local government reviews, the soundings exercise has to take place; but, as we know, it has taken place and, although the Minister says it is not quite over, it is well under way.
	For the purposes of speeding things up, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 82 to 88 together so that they are not debated individually. Amendment No. 82 concentrates on who should be or should have been consulted. I should like to discuss the amendment in that spirit. Clause 12(4) says that the Secretary of State must consider,
	"views expressed and information and evidence provided to him".
	We need to check that all the people and organisations listed in Amendments Nos. 82 to 88 have been consulted. That may be the way the Minister wishes to respond to my amendment.
	It is important that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult these bodies. I have grouped them together, but I believe it is vital that we take account of the relative effect that local government reorganisation will have on each of them.
	When one mentions "business", it conjures up, by and large, national and international corporations. But the small and medium-sized constitute 90 per cent of businesses in some regions. Even more telling are the DTI statistics which inform us that at the start of the year 2000 there were an estimated 3.7 million businesses in the UK. Of those, 99 per cent had fewer than 50 employees.
	I have spoken to the CBI, and I know that many people have had correspondence from it. We are assured that most businesses are not in favour of the Bill or of regional assemblies at all. It would be helpful to know how the businesses have been canvassed and how their views will be taken account of by the Secretary of State, assuming that the soundings exercise is still going on. That applies to the views of district councils in the regions as well. People will vote for elected regional assemblies and local government restructuring, but not one without the other. Therefore, people will have strong views on what will happen to their district councils. That will be the same for the county councils in the region, which will want their views taken into account.
	The Minister will tell us that all local authorities will be consulted, and I am sure he is correct. I hope that the views gathered from the consultation will be reflected upon with a degree of proportionality. If in some regions unitary authorities are predominant, the views of the remaining two-tier local government bodies should carry more weight. Essentially, the unitary authorities may impose local government reorganisation on two-tier government areas, even if all those in the two-tier areas vote no. We have discussed that as well.
	Council tax payers are probably among the most important people in this respect; they should have been consulted and I hope they were. I do not know of individuals who have been canvassed, but perhaps I do not know enough people. Council tax payers will be paying for this. At the end of the day, they will have a precept upon the council tax and will be obliged to pay it. In London, that precept started off as 3 pence a week; it has gone up to more than five times that amount and is still rising.
	The views of the voluntary sector bodies in the region should be consulted. They have a vested interest in how things should be operated. Organisations concerned with the environment should be consulted as well, particularly those related to planning and housing. Those are the two areas where it is abundantly clear the Government intend to place powers which are currently in the hands of local authorities.
	My amendment would make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult organisations in each category. Perhaps he has done that, in which case the Minister may be able to tell us. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 114 is not in this group but makes a similar point, so it may help if I refer to it. Much of what is referred to here is work that the Boundary Committee could quite properly do. That is the thrust of Amendment No. 114. I hope that the Minister will explain whether there is a distinction between the two approaches.
	On Amendment No. 86 and the views of council tax payers, while I would not for a moment suggest that costs are irrelevant, I am not persuaded that they are so relevant as to exclude all other considerations to which the attention of council tax payers might be drawn. Of course, there are differences between us as to the possible value of regional assemblies. However, almost whatever their powers, I am unhappy at costs being singled out.
	As for Amendment No. 88, I would not suggest that planning and housing powers were unimportant, but why should we not provide that the attention of business is drawn to economic development issues? We might draw the attention of small businesses to the Small Business Service, for example, which is to remain centralised, as we discussed the other day.
	We go along with the Conservatives to some extent, but on parallel tracks rather than the same track.

The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister confirm something about the soundings exercise? I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham for telling us a bit more about it, as some of us were excluded and are not as up to date as we should like to be. Was it made clear in the soundings exercise that, even if someone wanted to have a referendum about a regional assembly, a consequence would be that county councils, district councils and the two-tier authorities would cease to be? I suspect that many of those who received the soundings exercise were not fully aware of the implications of the Bill.

Lord Rooker: The easiest answer that I can give the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is "Yes". We dealt with that point in last Thursday's debate. Anyone who has read the document will know that. There may be an argument about the words, but it is there in the soundings document. In the original debate, someone quoted paragraph 20-odd and I quoted paragraph 17. The implications are clear that, with regional assemblies, there will be single-tier local government.
	I know that the noble Baronesses are trying to be helpful, but we have just had the introduction to four groups of amendments. If I answer all those, I am not going to get up and do it again when we come to them on the list. I am not stupid. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asks if I will respond to Amendment No. 114. I am quite happy to answer it, but it is way out of order; I do not want to get to Amendment No. 114 and be told, "Oh, we want to come back to this". I want to be helpful, but we are trying to work to an order. I did not set the order of these groups. I am happy to do all four groups together—obviously, it is more convenient for me.

Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I should have given the Minister warning. I apologise for that. I merely thought that we might cut down proceedings a tiny bit, and I believed that he would be absolutely thrilled to bits. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 82 to 88. I have referred only to the list of people to be consulted.

Baroness Hamwee: I want to clear matters up. The points raised under these amendments seemed relevant to Amendment No. 114. I do not intend to come back to it, unless it would be more convenient for the Minister to take it at its place in the Marshalled List. I was trying to dispose of the issue, not to make life more difficult.

Lord Rooker: I am new to this place. I cannot understand why Amendment No. 114 was not grouped with the other amendments. In another place—the sensible place for groupings, although not for scrutiny; good at groupings, not so good at scrutiny—it would have been. I can see that Amendment No. 114 exactly fits with the other amendments. Having got that off my chest, I can move quickly through the amendments, because the answer is almost the same to all of them. The noble Baroness looks far more friendly when she smiles. That is fine; I am much happier facing a smiling face at this time of night.
	On Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, the regional arms of the CBI, Institute of Directors and Chambers of Commerce were all sent a copy of the soundings document and pro forma. Any other businesses or business organisations were welcome to put forward their views, and indeed many have, as will be apparent when we give the results of the soundings exercise.
	Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 deal with district and county councils. As is known, all the principal local authorities were sent a copy of the soundings document and invited to respond, and they have. We have been actively seeking the views of people across the regions in order to determine the level of interest in holding a referendum.
	I grant that Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are slightly different in that they deal with consideration of,
	"the views of council tax payers in the region after having first published for their consideration a statement of the likely costs of a regional assembly in their area",
	and,
	"the views of voluntary sector bodies in the region".
	We have the White Paper. I am not arguing that masses of voters have read it; they have not. However, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations was among those sent a copy of the soundings document, which it then distributed among its members. Moreover, any individual or organisation was welcome to put forward views.
	Amendment No. 86 would require the Secretary of State to publish, for the consideration of council tax payers, a statement of the likely costs of a regional assembly. Chapter 5 of the White Paper is the best information available and I really cannot go beyond it.
	Amendment No. 88 would require the Secretary of State, for the purposes of considering the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum, to consider the level of interest of organisations charged or concerned with housing or planning matters. All organisations were welcome to put forward their views. We sent a copy of the sounding document and pro forma to the regional sustainability round tables asking for their views. The existing regional chambers were also sent a copy of the document. They will be responsible, by the time that elected assemblies, if approved, are up and running, for the regional planning powers that we propose to give to the regional assemblies.
	As I said, Amendment No. 114 would basically mean that the Boundary Committee was statutorily required to consult members of the public. I think that that is the main difference. The consultation requirements with which the Boundary Committee will have to comply are set out in Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992 and applied with modifications for the purposes of local government reviews by virtue of Clause 14. They are the same requirements that would apply to other structural and boundary reviews carried out by the Electoral Commission as the body responsible for such reviews since the commission was established under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	The Boundary Committee is also required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In the draft guidance on which we consulted, Members of the Committee will see that the Government suggest who the interested parties might be. Chapter 6 of the draft guidance also spells out who should be consulted and how such consultation may be achieved. It includes a recommendation that the Boundary Committee write to all the principal local authorities, to all Members of Parliament in the region and to other representative organisations. It also suggests that the Boundary Committee publish advertisements in one or more local newspapers and takes such other steps as seem necessary to provide suitable publicity. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by those arrangements and the list of organisations to be consulted already included in the guidance.
	That is a potted version. I know that there is criticism of the fact that we sent out 1,100 copies of the document. However, we have certainly covered all the organisations and sectors proposed in these amendments. So we are not simply interested in their views, we have actively canvassed their views. And they have responded. In due course, we will know what they said.

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister throw some light on the Constitution Committee report? Mr Raynsford was asked about the Durham survey and the report pointed out that a large number of people in that area knew nothing of the soundings and were not aware of the coming of regional assemblies. Mr Raynsford said on 6th February,
	"and we have recently been giving some attention as to whether we ought to be giving greater publicity to the soundings exercise".
	Was that followed up, and what extra action was taken following the promise that more thought would be given to providing greater publicity to the soundings exercise before it was completed on 3rd March?

Lord Rooker: That is a worthwhile question to which I do not have an answer. If I am given one as regards what action Nick Raynsford took subsequently, I shall inform the Committee of it before we end our discussion on the Bill tonight.

Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Indeed, it seems from what he said that most of the bodies and the people concerned have been approached. However, none of that was necessary, and indeed, none of it should have taken place. The Bill is not yet an Act but all of Clause 12 has been carried out in advance of the Bill being considered in either House. We are now faced with having to ask a whole host of questions. Although the Minister says that the soundings exercise will continue until the Bill is finally passed, the soundings exercise document does not say that. That stated that the soundings exercise would be finished by 3rd March. But, as I have said before, that was just about the same time as this Bill came into this Chamber. So, the amendments that we have tabled and the questions that we have asked have all been pre-empted. It is just as well that all the relevant bodies appear to have been approached because there is nothing this Chamber can do about the matter. It is a fait accompli.

Lord Rooker: That is not fair. I ought to point out for the avoidance of doubt that the Bill contains no duty on the Government to consult anyway. Let us get that absolutely clear. We have carried out the soundings exercise as a valid exercise from the point of view of good public administration. However, as I say, there is no duty to consult. The soundings exercise gave people an opportunity to provide us with information.

Baroness Blatch: There is a duty. The Secretary of State cannot make an order unless he has the results of a soundings exercise. So, he has a duty to consult and to reach a judgment on the level of interest. He cannot find out the level of interest unless he sounds out the community on that. So, there is a duty implied in the Bill on the Secretary of State to carry out a soundings exercise.

Lord Rooker: Indeed, that is the distinction I drew between taking soundings and the duty to consult.

Baroness Hanham: I am sorry to be tendentious. However, I am not sure whether I am being tendentious or the Minister is being tendentious. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 states that,
	"the Secretary of State must not give a direction unless he has considered the level of interest".
	Either he does that in the ether or he consults in order to find out whether there is interest in the matter. However, the Minister says that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to consult. Subsection (4), which we seek to amend, states that,
	"the Secretary of State must consider—
	(a) views expressed and information and evidence provided to him".
	To try to distinguish between consultation and people's great and noble thoughts about the Bill in that regard is to split hairs.

Lord Rooker: The measure seeks to avoid the implication of having to write to or consult every voter in a region; that is the difference.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. We may return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 83 to 88 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 6, line 22, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Baroness Hanham: Subsection (5) of Clause 12 lists a number of other factors which the Secretary of State may consider when giving a direction to the Boundary Committee to undertake a local government review. Subsection (5)(a) to (e) lists as possible considerations the effects of such a review on the region in question, on other regions, the resources needed to undertake a review and any earlier consideration for the Boundary Committee.
	The amendment would ensure that those considerations were not optional but compulsory. Essentially, it would remove the discretion of the Secretary of State to take the factors listed into account if he so wished, and instead make it a positive requirement before any direction was given. I do not need to speak for long on the amendment. My reasoning on it is much the same as I expressed on other amendments to the clause. They reflect my general attitude to the sounding exercise, which is now one of even more concern than it was before we started. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The explanation—I referred to it earlier in some ways—is as follows: the consideration of the factors in subsection (5) is discretionary. We need that discretion because of the approach that we intend to adopt in relation to deciding in which regions to hold a referendum, and then in which regions to direct a local government review. The primary consideration is the level of interest in a referendum. Where interest is high, we intend to direct a review. Where it is low, we do not intend to direct a review, regardless of any other consideration.
	Only where the level of interest is inconclusive, or where there is high level of interest in a number of regions, might we want to consider whether it was practicable to conduct a referendum at that time. Subsection (5) sets out the criteria that we would use in reaching a decision in the circumstances that I have described. It would be quite wrong to make consideration of those criteria mandatory, which is what the amendment would do, because, as I have explained, there are circumstances in which we could and should be able to make a decision on the basis of interest alone.
	Making consideration mandatory could cause real problems. We need to be more flexible, simply because of the basis on which the decision will be made. We need that flexibility because we do not know what the soundings exercise will come out with in terms of the balance of interest, region by region. We have to take account of the fact that there will be a variety of levels of interest and make a judgment at the time. As I said, it would be totally impractical and would not work if every region had a big interest. We need to make some choice. Where the level of interest is high, our basic intention would be to go ahead and direct a review. That would make sense where there was high interest. As I referred to in relation to subsection (3), we could not deal with too many at the same time, which is a practical difficulty.

Baroness Hanham: As I read the clause, subsection (4) makes it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consider the views expressed—we discussed that—the published material that he thinks appropriate, and all the other people on all the other bodies. With relation to subsection (5), however, how on earth will the Secretary of State make a decision if he does not think what effect,
	"the carrying out of a local government review will have on the relevant local authorities",
	and what,
	"differences in the effects he thinks the carrying out of local government reviews will have on the relevant local authorities"?
	He must do that. It should not be the case that he only "may" have to do it. Subsection (5) should be as mandatory as subsection (4). Subsection (5)(a) to (e) deals with fundamental issues that the Secretary of State would have to take into account when making a decision about whether there should be a local government review.
	I still believe that the subsection should be mandatory, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 6, line 23, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).

Baroness Hamwee: For probing reasons, the amendment seeks to delete subsection (5)(a) and (b). I do not propose to speak about paragraph (a), which will make the Minister ask why I simply did not move the amendment. However, I want to look at paragraph (b), which provides that the Secretary of State may and no doubt will consider differences on the local authorities—we will come later to the words "taken as a whole"—in the different regions.
	Perhaps the Minister can let us know whether that is the basis for decisions about referendums being taken in different tranches. That is not how I read it, because it is one of the factors that will affect whether or not the Secretary of State gives the direction—not when he gives the direction but whether he does so. I read it as meaning that if something is not good for region A, then perhaps region B cannot have it. I wonder whether the Minister can help me to understand the part that that plays in the decision and in the overall timetable. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Minister will be cautious about removing paragraphs (a) and (b). I suspect that he will be because this is a government Bill. We would say "must consider" as opposed to "may consider". I believe it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State considers the effect that the carrying out of a local government review will have on the relevant local authorities taken as a whole in the region. I take "the region" to be the region that is likely to have the referendum for regional government.
	There will also be effects on other regions and, indeed, on other authorities. I believe that the differences in the effects that the Secretary of State believes that the carrying out of local government reviews will have on the relevant local authorities, taken as a whole in different regions, should at least be taken into account. If they are not taken into account, then the consequences of establishing regional assemblies will be defective.

Lord Rooker: In responding to Amendment No. 90, I shall use the briefing that I have in front of me because I believe that in that way I shall be able to give a better explanation than I would if I were ad-libbing.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Rooker: Sometimes I am a little more precise than at other times and am able to make the case, but sometimes the words of the briefing are useful when they are read back to me later.
	Amendment No. 90 removes the ability of the Secretary of State to consider the effects that he believes a local government review will have on the relevant two-tier authorities and the differences in those effects between the regions.
	Where the level of interest in a referendum is inconclusive, it may be that the level of disruption for two-tier local authorities of a local government review is not considered worth while at the time. In circumstances where the level-of-interest test is inconclusive, it will be important carefully to balance a number of factors. I believe that that is where we must leave the flexibility to the Secretary of State.
	Where it is clear that the level of interest is low or where it is clear that it is high, it is far easier to make the decision. Where it is inconclusive on the balance, then one must consider other factors of the effects. I believe that we need that flexibility.

Lord Hanningfield: Surely the Minister has just justified our previous amendment in which we said that the Secretary of State "must" take into account various factors. The noble Lord has just said that the Secretary of State "would" want to take into account the factors concerning the level of reorganisation of local government and the disruption that it would have in establishing a region.

Lord Rooker: That makes sense where, in particular, the review of the soundings is inconclusive. It is more clear-cut where the soundings are, let us say, very weakly or very strongly in favour of a referendum. It is much easier to make the decision in such a case. If we were to make the referendum mandatory where the soundings were, say, overwhelmingly weak, then we could force people into a wrong decision. Therefore, I believe that flexibility is needed in this part of the clause.
	In a way, that is where part of the problem arises. No one will believe us but it is true that we have not prejudged how many or which regions will undergo a local government review in the first round. I realise that noble Lords are convinced that they know which regions those will be. But no decisions have been taken and no final decision to make a direction will be taken until we have considered the results of the soundings exercise, together with other information under Clause 12(4), and until the legislation provided in the Bill has been enacted. So the provisions in Clause 12(5) allow for a common sense approach to deciding which regions should have a review as a precursor to a referendum. That flexibility needs to be built in.
	On the evidence to the Select Committee about extra publicity on the soundings exercise, my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for local government, Nick Raynsford, and the Member for Skipton carried out a number of media interviews to raise publicity. Additional press notices were issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister during February and the pro forma was made even more directly accessible on the home page of the ODPM website. The list of organisations sent copies of the soundings document was placed in the Libraries of the two Houses in December. Some extra effort was made as a result of the increase in the publicity on the soundings exercise, but it will not have been enough to satisfy Members of the Committee.

Baroness Blatch: From the soundings I have carried out, it is difficult to find people who know about the exercise and who have responded to it. I even spoke to a chairman of education in a major local authority—I shall not name the authority—who was not aware that there had been a soundings exercise. So much for the local authority surveying its own people.
	The Minister has given an interesting response to the amendment. If at an early stage the Secretary of State decides that an area has shown a sufficient level of interest to undergo the exercise and takes into account some of the matters set out in Clause 12, and if the Boundary Committee gets under way and deems that the level of upheaval in local government to achieve a single tier authority below what would be a regional assembly was so great that it was not worth the candle, would that have any influence on the Secretary of State deciding to continue with the exercise?

Lord Rooker: The Secretary of State would not continue with the exercise. The Boundary Committee would come to a conclusion and report to the Secretary of State. I cannot prejudge the conclusion of the Boundary Committee. I cannot say that the example given by the noble Baroness is fanciful because I would not rule anything out or anything in. It will look at the best available, most practical, form of single tiered government for a region. Its conclusions will be its conclusions and they will be published. There will be no secrets about that. The Secretary of State will have to decide whether to accept those conclusions, whatever they may be.

Baroness Blatch: My question was more subtle than that. My straight question is whether the Boundary Committee is free to come to a conclusion that the upheaval would be so great that it would counteract the rationale for going ahead with the referendum.

Lord Rooker: When asked a straight question like that it is difficult to avoid a straight answer. However, the Boundary Committee's conclusions will be its conclusions. Broad draft guidelines will be issued about how to go about the work it is asked to do. To carry out the review will be a big exercise. Its conclusions on what it does in the region and what it takes back to the Secretary of State will be its conclusions. You can ask me all the hypothetical questions you like, but I cannot give a better answer than that. I shall not fall into the trap of answering the highly subtle and sophisticated questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that later will be used in evidence against me.

Baroness Hamwee: The most interesting thing to have come out of that exchange is the notion that the Member for Skipton has taken part in the soundings exercise. Mr Curry may be surprised to learn that he has done so. I think the Minister should have said the Member for Shipley. I am not trying to be clever. All right I am, but I was certainly not as subtle as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Minister has set a hare running.
	The Minister has answered the amendment far more in relation to paragraph (a) than paragraph (b). I shall obviously read Hansard, but I think he confirmed that paragraph (b) is directed to decisions about tranches and the selection of which regions should go into the first, second and so on tranche. The Minister is nodding. I do not know whether he wants to intervene.

Lord Rooker: I wish only to say that it was the Member for Shipley and not the Member for Skipton.

Baroness Hamwee: Both David Curry and Mr Leslie will be very relieved to hear that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 6, line 24, leave out "(taken as a whole)"

Baroness Hanham: This is a small amendment. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the phrase "taken as a whole" means? I should welcome his arguments for not removing the phrase. It serves little purpose. My principal concern is that the requirement to think in terms of,
	"local authorities within a region (taken as a whole)",
	brings with it a refusal to respond to the specific effect on each in turn. There will be, as we have discussed, a number of local authorities within any region. If they are just to be lumped together rather than dealt with separately, presumably that could be what "taken as a whole" means.
	Considering the region as a whole without concentrating on the individual authorities makes the two paragraphs dangerously ineffective. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 91A and 93A are directed to the same point but go about it slightly differently. We propose inserting after "as a whole" the words "and individually" for exactly the same reason; that is, we find it hard to understand how one can assess "as a whole". I should be distressed to think that the effect on individual local authorities was not a consideration.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baronesses have been commendably brief, as I shall try to be. The amendments have a similar effect. As presently drafted, if the criteria in Clause 12(5) were brought into play we would look at the regional impact of local government reviews. In looking at the effect of the reviews, we would want to consider not simply the effect on individual authorities but the effect on two-tier local government in the region as a whole.
	The Boundary Committee's review will look at the region authority by authority. But the situation is more complicated; it is the effect on the region as a whole. Obviously, we would need to ascertain the impact on individual authorities, but they are the building blocks for the wider consideration. Obviously, we would not ignore the impact on individual authorities, some of which might be joined together or whatever—I do not know. So the effect on them will be important.
	However, in looking at the individual effect we need to consider the big picture for the whole region in order to make a judgment. In deciding whether to direct a review in a region where there is an inconclusive level of interest or how practical it is to hold reviews in two or more regions simultaneously, what matters is the overall effect. That is an important judgment because it is made on a regional basis and not on the individual authority. We are talking about regional referendums. So we must look at the overall situation in the region. It would be wrong to say that we would not consider the effect on individual authorities but only to help us form a judgment about the effect on the region.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 91A to 93A not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).

Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. The amendments seek to leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 12(5).
	Reference was made earlier to Boundary Committee resources. I tabled the amendments in order to ask the Minister whether he can explain the constraints on both cash and people with expertise in the field—which I understand from discussion outside this place, to be the even greater problem.
	It cannot be right for a region that passionately wants an assembly—or, to maintain what I increasingly feel to be a bit of a fiction, a referendum—to be denied it for want of what are relatively small resources. It still escapes me how the Secretary of State can judge which regions will have the greatest call on the Boundary Committee's resources. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I shall make similar points to those I have made already, but if that helps to clarify the matter, that is fine.
	Perhaps the best way to respond to the amendments is for me to explain the purpose of the provision that the noble Baroness seeks to amend. We have already said that the greater the number of reviews that the Boundary Committee is directed to conduct at one time, the longer the process is likely to take. A resource question is obviously involved. We do not rule out the possibility of conducting reviews in two or more regions simultaneously or in reasonably close proximity. We are simply acknowledging in the Bill that once we go beyond reviewing just one region, there may be implications for the Boundary Committee and a trade-off between the number of regions that undergo review and the time that it takes to conduct the reviews.
	Of course, that choice does not arise unless the Secretary of State is considering more than one region. Hence, the way that the Bill is drafted, two is the point at which that choice may become an issue. The implications for the Boundary Committee of making a direction for an additional region or regions may, among other things, depend on the number of two-tier authorities in the region. No one can say with certainty for all future occasions when reviews may be directed that the implications for the Boundary Committee would be such that it would be sensible to direct reviews in all regions in which there is an interest in holding a referendum.
	Some regions include a large number of two-tier authorities and the implications for the Boundary Committee may be such that it may not be right to proceed with all such regions. Basically, we want to leave that flexibility on the statute book for any future Secretary of State. I repeat that we have not prejudged how many regions or which region or regions will undergo a local government review in the first round. That will depend on the soundings exercise and the passage of the Bill. We are trying to allow for a commonsense approach.
	I hope that that explanation is satisfactory. We need the flexibility simply because we do not know which regions are involved, the regions are all different and the resources of the Boundary Committee are not inexhaustible.

Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister, but I am not sure whether he is saying that, depending on the regions involved, it may be possible to deal with more than one at once. Obviously, the regions are of different sizes and will have different issues. But it is not a given that it is better to deal with one region and get it over with, if that is all that the Boundary Committee can cope with, than to do more than one more slowly but simultaneously. There are arguments for doing the work in more than one region at the same time, leading to simultaneous referendums. Has that been ruled out entirely or is it still possible that one may be slower but broader?

Lord Rooker: It is not possible to make a judgment until we get the results of the soundings exercise and see which regions will be involved. As the noble Baroness says, the regions and their local government structures are different, which will be factors. The population sizes of the regions are also different—one is quite small compared to the others. Therefore, it will be possible to judge how the boundary review will work only when we know the level of interest in the regions and can decide whether they can be done at the same time or one after another.
	Once direction is given to one to do the work subject to the outcome of the boundary review, there will be a referendum. That will trigger the main legislation, so, if another referendum follows, it would not be so affected. The first referendum resulting in a successful "Yes" vote—that is axiomatic; a "No" vote means no Bill—triggers the legislation. So it is important to reach a decision. I have no idea whether it will be possible to carry out one or more concurrently; nor do I know whether it is practical to deal with one shortly after another.

Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said to the Minister in the Select Committee on the Constitution, as reported at paragraph 12 on page 11 of the report:
	"You said in the explanatory notes in paragraph 38: 'for various reasons it may not be appropriate for directions to be given in relation to two or more regions at the same time'".
	That refers to the local government review. He seems to cast doubt on dealing with even two regions at the same time. Can the noble Lord throw more light on that, and what are the various reasons?

Lord Rooker: Resources are a key factor. The regions are different. Some have a large population and local authority structure; that is to say, many two-tier authorities. The noble Baroness is assuming that we have prejudged which regions will go, but we have not. Because the regions are so different, it is impossible to prejudge. That is why the issue has been left open.

Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 6, line 38, leave out from "region" to end of line 39.

Baroness Hanham: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104, because both amendments should be considered together.
	Amendment No. 104 is straightforward. Any noble Lords present today who have been involved in local government will know that at present the Office for National Statistics does not have a great record of accuracy in calculating the population in particular areas. Clause 13(2) states rightly that it can publish only a recent estimate. I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council. If it or Westminster City Council were to rely on the recent estimates as regards this Bill, we would be in the doldrums. The estimates can be wildly unreliable. It is not advisable to use them as a fundamental basis when considering a review of local government. That is the basis of Amendment No. 104.
	Amendment No. 96 is of a more probing nature. Subsection (6)(a) qualifies subsections (5)(a) and (b). As I said before, those paragraphs deal with the effect of a review on local authorities in the region and in different regions. Amendment No. 96 would leave out of subsection (6)(a) the consideration of the number of people living in the area of authorities subject to a review as a factor to which the Secretary of State must have regard for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) and (b). The Secretary of State should then have to have regard only to the number of relevant local authorities in a region, not the number of people in each of those local authority areas.
	I tabled the amendment to tease out of the Minister some clarification of how the two considerations under subsection (6)(a) should have practical effect. For instance, which should hold more weight? What examples can be given of the sort of influence that such calculations of population might have on a direction under Clause 12?
	The Minister may respond by telling me that it is relevant to consider the populations in local authority areas, when a change in local government structure is to be introduced. Although I would like to be given a practical example of the effect that consideration of population might have, I do not deny the principle of considering the population. However, I would like to know why such an important and relevant consideration is linked only to subsection (5)(a) and (b), which refer to matters for consideration that are not obligatory but are subject to the whim of the Secretary of State as to whether they feature as considerations. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which the noble Baroness spoke to them.
	Amendment No. 104 would delete the requirement that the Secretary of State should use only the most recent estimate published by the Office for National Statistics when reaching his judgment. I understand the points that have been raised, and I appreciate concerns about the accuracy—or the allegations about the accuracy—of the most recent census figures. It is a wonder that they are able to get them as good as they are, but I am aware of the difficulties, even in my former constituency. I understand the significant effect that it can have on local government, if the figures are wildly different from what they should be for the services that the authorities are providing for various people.
	Those difficulties, however, are nothing like the difficulties that would be caused if we did not specify in the Bill how the Secretary of State was to assess the number of people living in an area. There must be an objective basis for assessing the figure. In the main, the most recent figures from the ONS will be the ones to use. I hope and trust that any recent doubts about the census figures will not be an inhibiting factor. They are the best professional estimate of the population figures.
	We cannot go by electoral registration figures, and I would counsel strongly against using them. They vary enormously, and they are not a measure of population anyway; they register only eligibility to vote. As I used constantly to remind people, my electorate comprised those who could vote, but I was responsible for representing about 25 per cent more who were under voting age. The services provided to people under voting age represent an enormous tranche of local authority expenditure. Population figures are probably the best to use. With all the doubts, we have no more accurate set of national figures. It would be wrong to use other figures.
	Amendment No. 96 would remove the obligation on the Secretary of State, in applying the Clause 12(5) criteria, to consider the number of people living in the areas covered by two-tier authorities. Looking at the impact of the proposals on two-tier authorities, it has to be the case that the number of people living in those authorities is relevant. I do not know, because we are not pre-judging the issue, but it may be that if the impact in a local authority was particularly significant, or seemed likely to have a massive effect on local communities, it would be relevant to consider the number of people affected by any proposed change. The Secretary of State would need to have the right to consider these issues. We are talking about peoples' lives and services. I am not implying that Members of the Committee have not been doing that; they have. When we come down to probing this part of the Bill, the Secretary of State has to be able, on the one hand, to take account of the effect on the population of an area, and on the other receive the best measure of the population, in order to make that judgment. I hope that that explanation will cause the amendment to be withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his response. I remain cynical about the estimate of the population, as published by the Office for National Statistics. The Bill has regard to the most recent estimate. The one thing we do know is that if the estimate is wrong to start with, then it becomes increasingly wrong as years pass. In Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster they are tens of thousands out, not thousands. Those councils are not going to be affected by this Bill, but it will affect councils in other parts of the country. The estimates could be wildly out by the time the matter is taken into account. None the less, I thank the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 6, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Hanham: This amendment would remove paragraph (b) of subsection (6). The paragraph states that when considering the effects of a local government review on the relevant local authorities in a region, and differences in the effect a local government review will have on relevant local authorities, the Secretary of State,
	"must ignore any effect of the implementation of recommendations of the Boundary Committee following a review."
	It is arguably wrong to expect the Secretary of State to ignore pragmatic considerations, such as the upheaval and cost of reorganising local government. Can the Minister clarify what,
	"effects of the implementation of recommendations of the Boundary Committee"
	could justifiably be ignored in accordance with this paragraph? I can think of none myself. I do not see what this paragraph is designed to cover. It seems to have been included to provide a get out clause for the Government. If there was a complaint that some pertinent factor had not been taken into account, the reply could simply be, "Clause 12(6)(b) says we shouldn't take into account the effect of implementation of the recommendations."
	I believe that the paragraph adds nothing to the Bill and could be omitted. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I hope to show that the amendment is superfluous. As drafted, Clause 12 (6)(b) means that in applying the criteria in Clause 12(5) the Secretary of State could not consider the effect on the affected local authorities of reorganising local government structure and boundaries. The amendment would give him the ability to consider the effect of implementing the Boundary Committee's recommendations following a review. He would be unable to consider that ahead of knowing what the Boundary Committee was going to recommend. The amendment is superfluous because it would give the Secretary of State a discretion which he would be unable to exercise.

Baroness Hanham: I shall read what the Minister said. It may be that he wants to re-read it. I will certainly read it, because I do not understand his reply. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
	"(8) A direction to the Boundary Committee to carry out a local government review of a region or regions must specify the timetable in accordance with which the review must be carried out and recommendations made to the Secretary of State.
	(8A) The timetable referred to in subsection (8) must include the following steps which the Boundary Committee are required to take—
	(a) upon receipt of the direction, publicise to people living in the area the making of the direction and the timetable under subsection (8);
	(b) make provision for people living in the area to make representations upon the review;
	(c) prepare draft recommendations as to the matters considered by the review;
	(d) publicise the draft recommendations to people living in the area;
	(e) deposit copies of the draft recommendations at the principal offices of every district and county council in the region;
	(f) take account of representations received from people living in the area upon the draft recommendations.
	(8B) Not later than the date specified in the timetable for the submission of their recommendations the Commission must—
	(a) submit their recommendations to the Secretary of State;
	(b) take such steps as they think sufficient to secure that persons living in the area who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and of the period specified in the timetable within which it may be inspected;
	(c) deposit copies of the recommendations at the principal offices of every county council and district council in the region."

Lord Hanningfield: We come to an important part of our deliberations today. The Bill directs the Boundary Committee simply to specify a date on which the review of local government structure will begin in a region and the date on which the Boundary Committee will make its recommendations. It does not spell out the process which the Boundary Committee should go through.
	We have had a great deal of important discussions about reorganisation. It is most important that the review process is open and transparent and that people can participate in it locally and are aware of what is happening.
	Amendment No. 100 sets out the processes which the Boundary Committee should go through and they are similar to those which the Government suggest the Electoral Commission should do in establishing the electoral boundaries for the elected members of any region. It is vitally important that the process is undertaken in establishing the reorganisation of local government.
	As we have said several times during the past few days—and I feel it most strongly—the local government part of the legislation is the most difficult and important. It is the most heart-searching and I have been through it. I remember during the 1990s the trauma of reorganisation. There was then some public participation; for example, at one stage Buckinghamshire was to disappear into unitary authorities, as did Berkshire. As the public were involved in Buckinghamshire, there was considerable discussion and involvement and ultimately the then Secretary of State reversed the decision of the Boundary Commission, as it then was, and Buckinghamshire remained as a county without being reorganised.
	It is therefore most important that in any review of local government there is a transparent process in which the public can participate. We are therefore setting out processes in which the public and local government can be involved. There will be a draft set of recommendations which can be debated and people can put forward other solutions.
	The Minister has said that local government provides services but these regions will not. Surely, providing services to the public is the most important thing that happens; for instance, care for the elderly, looking after schools and so forth. That should not be disrupted, so it is important that local people are involved in the debate on local government reorganisation.
	Amendment No. 103 allows the public to inspect what the Boundary Committee is doing. The information should be available for the public to see and the whole process made as transparent as possible. I beg to move this important amendment.

Lord Greaves: These useful amendments relate to an important topic. They give the Government the opportunity to say exactly how local government reviews will take place. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that he had experienced local government reorganisation in the 1990s. Some of us went through it in 1972, 1973 and 1974 and it gets no better or easier. There will be in the areas involved a furore of local argument. Local politicians and the staff of local authorities will be involved and will devote a huge amount of time, effort and energy. Inevitably, it will be to the detriment of local services—that is the way it works—so it is crucial that local people know exactly what will happen, exactly how they will be able to take part and exactly how their views will be taken into account.
	When the draft recommendations are produced there will be another round of local discussions and debates and vast arguments and rows within each of the political parties. For at least 12 months while this is taking place, the normal political process of strutting between the parties will grind to a halt while everyone tears each other's eyes out within their own parties. That is the way it works. It is a useful amendment and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Lord will be delighted to know that I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of Amendments Nos. 100 and 103. He will be equally delighted, I hope, that we have anticipated them. The substance of both amendments is already provided for in the provisions of Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992, which are imported into the Bill by means of Clause 14. Both satisfy the requirements of the amendments. The amendments are unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. I understand from what he said that Clause 14 clarifies the review procedure. However, I shall have to look at the issue again. The Minister accepted that the process has to be transparent. It is a pity that it could not be included on the face of the Bill so that everyone is aware of the process involved in local government reorganisation. I do not understand why this could not be included on the face of the Bill to enable everyone to understand the process. Perhaps the Minister will come back on that point.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We would not wish to include it on the face of the Bill because it is already in legislation. That was the point of my answer.

Lord Hanningfield: I still would like to see it on the face of the Bill. I suspect the Minister is using the argument he used earlier about not wishing to have the same piece of legislation in two Bills. I do not necessarily accept that argument but I shall look at what he said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (10).

Lord Hanningfield: The amendment seeks to clarify the thinking behind subsection (10), which gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to alter or revoke a direction to the Boundary Committee to carry out a local government review. Under what circumstances do the Government envisage this would happen? This is an unusual clause and we would like to know the thinking behind subsection (10).

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 102 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to vary or revoke a direction to the Boundary Committee to conduct a local government review, once given. Such a provision might be needed, for example, if it became necessary to give the Boundary Committee more time to complete its review. It is therefore a sensible precautionary provision to cope with unforeseen circumstances.
	Indeed, it is standard practice for Bills to include such a provision. I would point the noble Lord to the similar provisions in Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1992 and Section 48(7) of the Local Government Act 2000. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Blatch: There is no reference in the clause to those other Acts of Parliament. The words on the page—I hope that on this occasion they actually mean what they say—are:
	"A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction".
	There are no limits whatever on that power. Is the noble Lord defending that?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am advised that this is already in the Bill. I am defending it because it is in the Bill—where in the Bill I do not know.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, but that is not good enough. If it is in the Bill, and if we are to accept the Minister's answer, can we be given the reference? Simply because the Minister says so is not sufficient to make us to accept it.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: May we leave it that during the course of the next half-hour or so we shall be able to give the noble Baroness the reference she requires?

Baroness Blatch: Procedurally, that is not possible unless an amendment has not been dealt with. I do not think that we can do that out of sequence.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: The Minister has indicated that a similar provision is contained in previous legislation. Noble Lords opposite will have the opportunity to check this point at later stages of the Bill. The Minister says that this is not a precedent; it has been used on a number of occasions in previous legislation. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable explanation unless Members opposite have objected to such a provision in previous Bills.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that the note I have received from my officials may help the Committee. I am advised that these refer to other provisions in other Bills, but Section 26(6) is also a part of this Bill for the purposes of Part 2 by Clause 16.

Baroness Blatch: Section 26(6) where?

Lord Rooker: I was reading briefing for two amendments ahead. I did not hear the noble Baroness's original question to my noble friend. Is she asking about Clause 12(10)? Without further particulars in front of me, the provision looks fairly wide. It is specific to this clause; it is not a question of carte blanche. The reference that my noble friend gave was to Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, and we apologise for that fact. If this looks too wide, and there is not time to do anything about it now, I guarantee that we shall come back with a better explanation. Before Report stage, we shall check whether this is a necessary part of the clause.
	Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness the reference in Clause 16. At line 40 on page 9, she will see a reference to the 1992 Act. The clause is headed, "Application of the 1992 Act". Section 26 is sidelined on the left of the provision:
	"So far as it relates to anything done under a provision specified in this Table for the purposes of this Part".
	If that is not satisfactory we shall take the provision away and examine it to make sure that those on the Front Bench opposite are content that we are not taking wide powers that are not justified.

Lord Hanningfield: We thank the Minister for that response. Given his assurance that he will re-examine this provision and bring the matter back if necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Local government review: supplementary]:
	[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "the appropriate boundaries for the introduction of unitary local authorities within the region"

Lord Hanningfield: The aim of Amendment No. 105 is to introduce some clarity into the legislation with the help of a little plain English. The Bill defines local government review as a review to consider what structural change is most appropriate for the region. The limited number of people familiar with the Local Government Act 1992 will realise that "structural change" simply means replacing county and district councils with unitary authorities.
	We believe the Bill should be put into more meaningful, straightforward language. If "structural change" is synonymous with dismantling county and district councils to create new unitary authorities, the Bill should say so.
	Our amendments would also allow the Boundary Committee the freedom to recommend that structural change is inappropriate for the needs of a given region. In some parts of England, particularly rural areas— we are repeating earlier arguments but they are important—two-tier local government has the advantage of meeting specific local needs. Northumberland is a very large rural county; to split it into small unitaries would be highly undesirable. Two-tier government also provides the necessary economies of scale to deliver large-scale services such as education.
	Amendment No. 106 acknowledges that the Government have consistently failed in debate to justify this argument. We have been told that it is political and we have to take it or leave it; we will not have three tiers of government. But I repeat what I have just said about rural communities. We think these amendments are very important.
	I repeat what we have said several times: local government is about delivering local services to local people. It is not just about carving out convenient local government units; it is also about delivering services. Therefore, we should be looking at the structure that delivers those services.
	The amendments may make minor changes to the Bill's wording, but they are very important in terms of the local government review. I hope the Government will reconsider their earlier stance and accept them.

Baroness Hamwee: Our little Amendment No. 108 is in this group. We have debated possible boundary changes not only within a region but to a region. I take this opportunity to support the thrust, if not necessarily the detail, of what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said.

Lord Rooker: I support the initial view of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about clarity of language. We all think we can draft legislation more clearly but every time I attempted to do so in another place, the consequences were drawn to my attention. There is a great skill in drafting legislation. We might not always agree with the way in which they do it, but parliamentary counsel provide a good service. It is much easier to draft legislation if Ministers know what they want; when they do not know what the policy is or do not know what they want, the result is badly drafted legislation. It is the fault of the Ministers, not parliamentary counsel.
	My speaking notes seem to contradict commitments that I have given in some respects, particularly in our early debates, about not touching existing unitary authorities. I have given commitments on the example given from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches. I will not go into detail about that, because I have drawn it to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. However, let me go through the process on this group of amendments.
	The definition of the structural boundary changes is set out in the Local Government Act 1992 and applied for the purposes of this Bill by virtue of Clause 14. Clause 13 ensures that the Boundary Committee can recommend a new unitary structure only for those areas that currently have a two-tier local government and any new authorities must be within existing regional boundaries. The Boundary Committee could, in recommending a pattern of unitary authorities, make changes to the boundaries of existing authorities if it believed that to be necessary, but it could not change the boundaries of existing unitary authorities or the boundaries of the region.
	I have already said that we would consider that point about changing the boundaries of existing unitary authorities. The example was given of Bradford and Skipton. I have drawn that point to the attention of Nick Raynsford.
	Amendment No. 108 would require the Boundary Committee, as part of its review of local government in the region, to consider whether changes should be made to the boundaries of the region. For reasons I have explained, the Government could not accept that, but I do not want to repeat all those reasons.
	I hope that those who put their name to Amendment No. 107 have noticed that it would result in the Boundary Committee considering the implications of a local government review for the,
	"effective, efficient local government in",
	the region, which is already achieved by the provision of Clause 13(8)(d).
	As for the Boundary Committee being able to consider no change, as in Amendment No. 106, we have made our position clear. I said that it would be subject to the caveat that I gave. It would not be widespread, but the example that was given was a good one, and I believe that it should be reconsidered.
	Amendment No. 105 would enable the Boundary Committee to amend the boundaries of existing unitary authorities, as would Amendments Nos. 109 to 111. That is covered by the point that I made about having a look at whether we can be more flexible in producing the best available system of local government. Members of the Committee have suggested that, unless the Boundary Committee is allowed to consider the boundaries of all the local authorities in the region, the pattern of unitary authorities created might be unsustainable in the long run.
	The priority is to minimise the impact of reorganisation. The purpose is not local government reorganisation but elected regional assemblies, if, after a referendum, the people want them. Local government reorganisation comes as a secondary order. However, we are adamant about single-tier authorities, and we would withdraw the Bill and not proceed if that were not established. That would not be accepting the will of Parliament—the Minister in charge of the Bill would simply withdraw it. The price is single-tier government. We have made that clear throughout our debates.

Lord Hanningfield: The Minister did not reply to my example.
	As all Members of the Committee know, I have been in local government a long while. I live nowhere near Northumberland, but it is far too big to be a unitary county under these proposals. It will be destroyed as a county council and will have to be split up into unitaries, which would still be very large. Services will be disrupted and chaotic in some places.
	The most important thing we do in local government is to provide services for people, care for the elderly, support schools, run libraries, repair potholes, collect waste, and so on. All those services will be tremendously disrupted for a long while and in some areas destroyed. The Minister referred to services in saying that regional assemblies were not there to run services. We will be creating something that does not run services but destroys them in the process.
	Will the Minister comment on that? The Government should reconsider this issue. If they are to continue with the idea of regional assemblies while decent services are provided, two-tier local government must continue to exist.

Lord Rooker: I deliberately avoided commenting on the noble Lord's point. It does no good to start commenting on individual local authorities, whether I know them or not. That would be to prejudge the issue. The boundary review will be the place for that, if it happens, subject to the soundings. It is not for Ministers to second guess at the Dispatch Box. With respect, the same applies to Opposition Members. All we would be doing is to send out the wrong signals based on no evidence whatever. The independent Boundary Committee will assess the issue and take account of all those factors—which may be valid. I am not knocking the validity of the noble Lord's comments. However, I think that it would be quite wrong in considering this Bill to start discussing the potential effects on individual local authorities. The effects may bear no relation whatever to the result of the boundary review.

Baroness Hamwee: In an earlier response the noble Lord used the term "secondary" in referring to the local government review. Does he mean "second" in the sense of sequence of events or "secondary" as in less important? I think that he meant the former.

Lord Rooker: The potential local government changes to single-tier authorities are a consequence of the attempt to have elected regional assemblies. In other words, we have not brought forward a Bill to reform local government. To that extent, it is a second-order issue. I am not saying that it is not important, but it is not the prime purpose. The prime purpose is to establish elected regional assemblies. If we had wanted a Bill on local government reorganisation, I am sure that we would have gone about it in an entirely different way.

Baroness Hanham: While we are on the subject of carving up local government as a second tier, I wonder whether the Minister will comment on the size of local authorities. I know that he will say that that is a matter for the Boundary Committee. However, perhaps he would consider any of the examples of the regions delineated in the White Paper. He may seek to join districts or shires together to make a unitary authority, but half of them do not even involve even numbers. One region may have 55 shires, seven counties and 12 unitaries, and another six counties, 36 districts and nine unitaries. We have talked about it being a hotch-potch and a melee. It looks as though there will have to be far more work in one or two of the regions than simply to combine two districts, for example, into a unitary. Many different decisions will have to be made about boundaries and definitions. It seems that all of that will cause a great deal more trouble than the Government envisage.

Lord Rooker: We have not envisaged it because, as I said, it will be down to the Boundary Committee to do that. I think that mish-mash was the word that we used. It is the variety in which a thousand flowers bloom. It is the variety of England, and long may it continue. It is not all the same. We are not saying that it is all the same and we do not want it to be. The consequence of a high level of interest in a referendum will be an assessment of the local government to create single-tier authorities. How that is done is entirely a matter for the Boundary Committee. It is no good our trying to second guess. It is clear that the committee has a job to do which will not be the same in every region. All the facts and figures in the White Paper show that each region is entirely different from the others.

Baroness Blatch: In his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who was talking about whether this was in fact secondary, the noble Lord reminded us, as he has done throughout our debates, that this is a referendum about regional assemblies and that local government review is just a consequence. On page 9 of the Select Committee on the Constitution report, not only the chairman but the whole committee made it clear that they were concerned about a particular constitutional point. The chairman said:
	"given that it is constitutionally novel, do you feel that the Bill has gone as far as it could in stipulating the provisions under which it should be triggered and determining the level when the interest is clearly there within a region?".
	In response, the Minister, Mr Raynsford, said:
	"Given that this is not just simply a process of holding a referendum but it also involves a Boundary Committee review and the potential disruption of local government attendant on that, which we recognise is not something to be triggered without good reason, we felt this was not necessarily the best way forward".
	The right honourable gentleman made it clear that this was a serious referendum not just about a regional assembly but about major disruption in local government.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness is making an issue of something that does not exist. Nothing that Nick Raynsford said in that regard contradicts what I have said. The prime purpose of the Bill is elected regional assemblies. The consequence of that, the second order effect—big though it is, as I accept—is single-tier local government. The purpose of the Bill is not single-tier local government. The purpose of the Bill is not to abolish England or the county councils. The purpose of the Bill is elected regional assemblies. The consequence of that—the second order effect—is single-tier local government. But that is not the Bill's prime purpose. It is no good trying to make it something that it is not.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. Next week we shall have the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill which is designed mainly to improve local government. However, local government reorganisation will help to destroy local government. So one week we are talking of destroying local government and the next week of trying to improve it. According to the recent comprehensive reforms assessment, small unitary authorities established in the 1990s have not performed very well and yet here we are talking about possibly setting up many more. We consider most of the responses totally unsatisfactory as regards tiers of local government, whether single or two-tier; regional boundaries; size of unitary authorities and boundaries of unitary authorities. I shall withdraw the amendment, but we shall have to return to these issues at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 105A to 108 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (4).

Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment No. 109, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 111 and 126B. Amendment No. 110 in the name of the Conservative Front Bench is grouped with the amendments that I am discussing.
	Amendment No. 109, which seeks to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 13, is consequential, if it is possible to be consequential but come first. Amendment No. 111 seeks to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of Clause 13. It seeks to remove the restriction on the Boundary Committee regarding areas which are not the areas of county councils or district councils. The Minister referred to examples given on an earlier day of Committee stage when we talked about the Lancashire coast and Blackpool. On that occasion I omitted to suggest that he have a word with his noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton who I believe would be likely to endorse the comments that we made about the nonsense of not at least considering the boundaries of Blackpool when dealing with Fylde and Wyre.
	Amendment No. 126B seeks to amend Clause 18. That clause provides that the Scilly Isles are not a relevant authority. I do not understand why they are not a relevant authority for the purposes of Clause 12(5)(a) which states that the Secretary of State may consider,
	"the effects . . . of a local government review ... on the relevant local authorities . . . in the region".
	Admittedly, the Scilly Isles are unlike any other authority in terms of location and size but they must surely have an interest in what happens within the region as that will affect them as an authority. How can they be totally excluded, which, if I understand Clause 18 aright, they would be? They would simply not have a voice or a look-in on the matter. That does not seem right. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: We support the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 110 would amend Clause 13(4) on page 7, which states:
	"Relevant local authorities are the county council and district council".
	We think that unitary councils should be included in that. Although we have heard over and again that they should not be considered in such discussions, they are part of the region and should be included. That is why we propose that amendment.

Lord Rooker: I really have nothing new to say. The answer to the amendment is basically the same as that to the previous amendment and the one before that. It is no good me saying anything else about existing unitary authorities, because I said a week or more ago that we would have a look at the issue and come back to it. Anything that I say is quite irrelevant now, because it is not my job to make the policy standing here at the Dispatch Box. I have given a commitment that, because of sensible and probing questions that were asked with good examples, we would see whether we could do anything on the issue.
	I know that somewhere among my notes, but not on this clause or even this amendment—I do not know why—I have read a lot more about the Scilly Isles in the past couple of weeks than I have in front of me now. I do not know on which amendment I read it. I understand that the Scilly Isles are quite different. I realise that Amendment No. 126B drags the Scilly Isles into the review process, but they have quite a unique local government structure for England, as the noble Baroness accepted. I do not have the words here, but I know that I have read somewhere that it is not a county council, it is not a district, and it is not unitary, but it works. I hope—I have never been there—that it does so to the benefit of the people of the Scilly Isles. We do not want them disturbed. On the other hand, we need to ensure that they are covered by any consequences under the Bill.
	The brief that I was talking about is on Clause 18 stand part. I knew that I had read it somewhere. We have not reached Clause 18 stand part. Things are coming at a rate of knots now. The brief is more or less what I said anyway, which proves I read it as I know nothing about the subject otherwise.
	The brief states that the Isles of Scilly will not be subject to a local government review, as they already have unitary local government. Local government in the Scilly Isles differs from elsewhere in England as the council of the Scilly Isles is neither a county, nor a district council, and various special provisions have been made for the council to exercise and perform specified local government functions. However, certain local government functions are performed on behalf of the Scilly Isles by Cornwall County Council. Clause 18 ensures that if a future local government review were to make structural changes in Cornwall, we would be able to provide by order for such functions to be performed by one or more of the successor authorities.
	I think that I put that in quite good language. I did not mention the bit about Cornwall doing the work for the Scilly Isles, but they have a relevant local authority. For our purposes, it is essentially a unitary authority and not a two-tier authority. It is the effect of the two tiers that means that the Scilly Isles are not covered by Clause 12(5)(a). However, they are part of the region—no one could deny that—and therefore are part of the review. They are part of the United Kingdom, so they are not ruled out, but they have a unique local government structure that works well and should not be disturbed. That is the answer, I hope, to Amendment No. 126B.
	The answer to the other amendments is basically to refer to what I said earlier, at the risk of repeating myself for Hansard.

Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness responds on her amendment, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He has just said that, unless there were some structural change to Cornwall, there would be no need to review the Isles of Scilly arrangements. But it is likely that if the region within which Cornwall is located had a regional assembly, Cornwall would disappear as a county council and structural changes could well take place. Then the Isles of Scilly would have to be included in such a review.

Lord Rooker: That is why Clause 18(2) is in the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My point was that Clause 18(1) states that:
	"For the purposes of section 12 . . . the Isles of Scilly are not a relevant local authority".
	Clause 12(5) provides for the Secretary of State to consider the effects of carrying out a local government review on relevant authorities. As the Minister said, what he read out about the Isles of Scilly was extremely elegant and, moreover, I believe that it put forward my argument perfectly.
	I do not believe that I am being illogical on this matter, but I shall not pursue the logic at five minutes to midnight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Page 7, line 27, at end insert "(subject to any guidance to the contrary published by the Secretary of State)"

Lord Hanningfield: I believe that we keep repeating ourselves but we do so in this group of amendments to ensure that the local government review process is open and transparent. On this side of the Chamber, we believe that the guidance prepared for the Boundary Committee should supersede requirements set down in the Bill.
	Over the past few days, we have had rather a lot of discussion about the soundings exercise, conducted by the Government, on whether referendums should take place. We have not heard much about the consultation process on the electoral process that was also put in train at that time. Therefore, in speaking to this group of amendments, we should like to hear that the Government will take notice of the process of consultation on the electoral arrangements and that the evidence that goes to the Boundary Committee will take over from the requirements of the Bill. That evidence will have been taken on soundings about the committee's process. That is why we have tabled Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 115, 116 and 117.

Lord Greaves: I want to speak specifically to Amendment No. 117, which refers to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State during the local government boundary process. It is vital that the guidance is not only issued to the Boundary Committee but that it is published. It is essential that those who wish to make representations—whether they are local authorities, people living in the area or organisations—know what the government guidance is. Without that, it will be difficult to make appropriate representations. For example, if the guidance included a minimum population level for unitary authorities of, say, 200,000 people, then it would be a waste of time for people to say that they wanted a unitary authority the size of, for example, Hartlepool, which is considerably smaller than that. Therefore, people need to know what the guidance is.
	My first question is: what areas will the guidance cover? The Minister may not be able to answer that today but perhaps he will write to us. Will the guidance cover population size? Will it cover a minimum or maximum area? Will it cover the nature of the area concerned; that is, will there be different criteria for rural authorities and urban authorities and so on?
	Secondly, will the guidance be the same for all regions that are subjected to a local government reorganisation or can it be different? I shall stop talking about the North East and the North West, and I shall imagine a hypothetical situation involving the South East and the South West. Could the guidance about local government reorganisation in those two regions be different, or do the Government intend to issue guidance that will apply to all regions, at least for a period of time?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: First, I shall deal with Amendment No. 113 which would require the Boundary Committee to comply with the requirements on consultation in the 2000 Act. The consultation requirements with which the Boundary Committee will have to comply are in fact set out in Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992 and applied with modifications for the purposes of local government reviews by virtue of Clause 14.
	They are the same requirements that would apply to other structural and boundary reviews carried out by the Electoral Commission as the body responsible for such reviews since its establishment under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We intend to comment on those requirements through the guidance that we shall issue to the Boundary Committee. Section 6 of the draft guidance, on which we are consulting and which is in the Library, will provide noble Lords with the necessary detail. We launched a consultation on 2nd December last and copies of the draft guidance were sent to all principal local authorities.
	As for the other amendments, Clause 13(8) provides the basis on which the Boundary Committee is to conduct local government reviews. In carrying out a review, the clause includes requirements for the Boundary Committee to assume that there is an elected assembly for the region; to have regard to the need to reflect the interests and identities of local communities; to have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government; and to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
	Amendment No. 115 would delete the requirement for the Boundary Committee to assume the existence of a regional assembly. The Bill requires that assumption because there will be a close working relationship between local and regional government, reflecting the fact that action taken at regional level will affect local areas and the actions of local authorities will, of course, contribute to regional goals. It is important, therefore, that in carrying out its reviews, the Boundary Committee recognises this reality and has regard to the position as it will exist when, or shortly after, the new authorities are brought into existence.
	I shall now deal with Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. The first would delete the requirement for the Boundary Committee to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The second would require such guidance to be "published" rather than "issued". Perhaps I can assure noble Lords opposite that we are not seeking to interfere with the Boundary Committee's independence. Of course the conduct of the review and the Boundary Committee's assessment of the factors that are relevant are entirely for it. But it is plainly right when conducting a review that the Boundary Committee should have a clear indication of what the Government consider to be important features affecting unitary structure.
	Once the Boundary Committee has completed its review and submitted its recommendations, it is for the Government—not the Boundary Committee—to implement any structural and boundary changes; and in doing so, the Government can make modifications to the Boundary Committee's recommendations. In that respect, the approach adopted in the Bill is no different from that adopted by the Local Government Act 1992. Given the Government's role in implementation, it is quite proper that the Boundary Committee should know the issues that the Government think are important in deciding what structural and boundary changes are appropriate for a region.
	The approach to guidance in the Bill is the same as that adopted by the then Government in relation to the reviews conducted by the Local Government Commission in the 1990s. The Secretary of State issued draft guidance for consultation prior to enactment of the 1992 Act and subsequently issued a number of versions of policy and procedure guidance to the Local Government Commission for England. These were publicly available.
	We also intend to ensure that the guidance we issue to the Boundary Committee is in the public domain. For that reason we have already consulted on a draft of the guidance. I can assure the Committee that the final guidance will also be published.
	I turn to Amendment No. 112. I must confess that I find it curious that Members opposite are keen to give the Government a wide discretion to disregard or to vary the matters set out in subsection (8) by means of guidance and thereby avoid any parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that reviews should be carried out in all regions on the same basic criteria as those set out in Clause 13(8).
	Finally, I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am not able to answer two of them, but I shall write to him shortly. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Greaves: The Minister does not need to write to me if the information is in the Library. I shall check. If it is not, I shall get in touch with him.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am now more concerned than I was before tabling the amendments. If the 1992 and onwards reorganisation is being cited as an example of good practice, someone may want to think again. It is generally accepted that the unitaries created then were too small. Berkshire is almost being recreated. The various unitaries are combining for purposes such as transportation and waste. They were too small to operate as practical units.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about the size of unitaries. I know several people who have responded to the consultation. They have said, "Do not establish unitaries of the size created in the 1990s". Whatever happens here, we want to create good local government that can deliver services. That is why the evidence that goes to the Boundary Committee, and its consultation, is paramount and more important than today's discussions. I was not reassured by the Minister. I am sure that we shall return to these issues in future stages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 113 to 117 not moved.]
	Clause 13 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
	Clause 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Implementation of recommendations]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
	2 ( ) at least forty per cent of those persons entitled to vote at such a referendum voted, and
	4 ( ) a majority of those voting in the referendum voted in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region, and"

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 119 is coupled with Amendments Nos. 119A, 119B and 119C standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. It is a great pity that we are discussing this—uncharacteristically for this Session of Parliament—so late in the day because it is an important part of the process.
	My amendment makes plain the threshold requirements that must be satisfied in a referendum in order to return a vote in favour of regional assemblies. The thresholds are that there should be an overall turnout of 40 per cent of the eligible vote, and that of those voting the majority vote in favour. This item appears in the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution. It expressed concern and stated:
	"We draw these matters to the attention of the House as raising questions of principle about principal parts of the constitution".
	That is qualified at the bottom of the page by an additional note:
	"Our normal practice is only to report on public Bills which raise an important question of principle affecting a principal part of the constitution. We consider that this bill meets these criteria".
	In other words, this is an important constitutional Bill and this is a particular area of concern as recorded by the Select Committee on the Constitution.
	A referendum turnout below the level of 40 per cent is surely indicative of a public disinterested and unenthusiastic about the prospect of regional assemblies. It is hardly a good sign for things to come. Such a body could hardly claim a strong mandate and would surely struggle to maintain its authority.
	It is not stretching the point too far, given the turnout in London and for mayoral elections in places such as Bedfordshire, Hartlepool, Tyneside and others, to say that between 10 and 20 per cent could turn out, but a majority of one would be sufficient to establish a regional assembly. The Mayor of Bedford was elected on about 12 per cent of the vote and the Mayor of London on about half of the vote of a 33 per cent turnout. So we are discussing small turnouts that give rise to major constitutional change.
	The Government must tackle head-on the problem that only a small minority of the English population know about regional assemblies. Many are completely unaware of the region to which they belong. The Government must avoid circumstances in which regional assemblies are established thanks to the active support of a tiny minority of the population, when the remainder would have opposed the establishment, had they been informed.
	There has been a conspicuous absence of publicity for the soundings exercise. What is the point of a public consultation about which the public are not told? There is evidence of that up and down the land, some of which we have cited anecdotally. Members of the House were conspicuously absent from the list of consultees, although we come from all parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the bodies that were consulted did not then further consult their own interested members.
	So we know that there has been a flawed consultation process, on which the whole process will be triggered. As I said, however small the turnout, a majority of one is sufficient to establish a regional assembly. Regional assemblies will not work, however much the Government want them to do so, unless they have the active support of a majority of people living in the area.
	The other point that must be emphasised is that large rural areas, especially in a place such as Northumberland, which is the most glaring example, could be massively outvoted by a relatively small turnout in the much more urban areas. There are likely to be large swathes within a region that do not want regional assemblies, when a small turnout of the urban parts of the region vote to establish an assembly. We think that that is unacceptable in a democracy.
	To establish a regional assembly on the back of a referendum in which fewer than 40 per cent of the electorate voted, or where the majority of at least an agreed percentage of the electorate did not vote in favour, is surely to make a mockery of all claims to democratic validity. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 119, Amendment No. 119A:
	Line 2, leave out "forty" and insert "fifty"

The Earl of Caithness: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 119B and 119C. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Blatch said in moving Amendment No. 119, but I disagree with her on the figures. Some hours ago, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, speaking to Amendment No. 44, that there must be democratic accountability. That is what my amendments are intended to achieve.
	I speak from our experience in Scotland of having devolution foisted upon us by fewer than 50 per cent of the electorate. The situation was even worse in Wales. Many who voted for devolution in Scotland are now seriously questioning whether they were wise to do so. I have no doubt that, if another referendum were held today, the result would be very different from the one on which the decision was taken. That is why Amendment No. 119A would require at least a 50 per cent turnout and that 50 per cent of the electorate vote in favour of an elected regional assembly.
	On Amendment No. 119C, I ask the Minister to tear up the words before him. He will be used to that; he did it on Clause 10. The words are not as we read them; they mean something totally different. I was trying to make the point that in every area where people vote there should be a majority in favour of what is proposed. That takes up the point that my noble friend Lady Blatch made about remote rural areas—it does not matter whether the area is in the North East or the South West. We talked a good deal about the issue. The Minister said that there were four proposed regional areas in which the rural votes outnumbered the urban ones, and that there were four areas where the opposite applied. In each area where there is a vote, the answer should always be "Yes", because that protects the interests of the minorities.
	The Bill does not propose government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is an exercise of limited functions for the few and by the minority. I am trying to make certain that a majority is the deciding factor. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: We on these Benches support the second half of Amendment No. 119, which would impose a condition that,
	"a majority of those voting in the referendum voted in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region".
	That seems entirely reasonable, although, as I understand it, the Bill as it stands would allow the Secretary of State to set up a regional assembly even if a majority voted against it in a referendum. It is unlikely that he would attempt to do that, but he could.
	We do not support the rest of the amendment. As a matter of principle, we do not support voting thresholds, whether in referendums or elections. The principle is dangerous. It does not apply to the House of Lords because we do not have to acquire votes, at least not yet. But one wonders whether, if a threshold of 50 per cent of voters were required in the Westminster election, at least one or two Members of the House of Commons would have had to try again.
	It may be deplorable that turnouts have been decreasing over the years. But, once people begin to get angry again, turnouts will start to increase. It is a cyclical pattern rather than a long-term decrease. Thresholds of this nature do not solve the problem of low turnouts. The principle must be, not that people are forced to vote for a proposal to be passed, but that they have the opportunity to vote for it to be passed. People have a right to abstain and say that they are not interested. As politicians, we would deplore that, but people still have the right to reject the whole political system and us because they are not interested. What matters in the principle of democratic elections and referendums is the decision of those who vote. So we do not support thresholds.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, are extraordinary. The requirement that 50 per cent of, presumably, the entire registered electorate—as the Minister pointed out, that is not always an accurate figure—must vote before something can be passed is very high. I think that the noble Earl accepted that. It is far too high a test.
	Noble Lords will know that I am no huge fan of the particular type of regional assembly that the Government propose, but, if everything is going to be as appalling as the noble Earl says and the assemblies will be a simple matter of government for the few and jobs for the boys, without any real powers, he should go out and mobilise the people. He and others who feel as he does should organise the people and get them to rise up in anger and vote against the plan. That is the true answer in a democracy, not trying to create false tests.
	The noble Earl mentioned devolution in Scotland and the fact that people in Scotland grumbled about the Parliament there. Of course, they do: there is a real devolved political system in Scotland with a real parliament. There is real politics going on, and, when that happens, people get grumpy and fed up about it. However, if we were to try to close down the Scottish Parliament, it would be the quickest way of inciting the Scottish people to rise up not only to defend their Parliament but to demand their independence. People in Scotland will defend that Parliament to the death. The noble Earl may disagree, but that is my impression.
	Finally, the noble Earl wants to insert a condition that every district council area in a region must vote for an assembly. As noble Lords know, I am sympathetic to the view that, if parts of the region that have two-tier local government vote against because they do not want their local government to change, they should have a veto on the whole thing, if the Government insist on single-tier local government in those areas. If people do not want to disrupt their local government systems, they should be able to stand firm against it. But if we require a positive vote in every district, those who are against it will put all their resources and all their campaigners into a couple of districts to get a "No" vote and disrupt the whole thing. The test proposed by the noble Earl would almost certainly make it impossible for any referendum to produce a positive vote.
	For those reasons, we do not agree with the amendments, apart from the second half of Amendment No. 119.

Baroness Hanham: The noble Lord just said that people should be allowed to abstain. Of course, they should; that is part of the democratic system. However, those abstentions ought to be counted as "anti" votes, if we are to regard this as a matter of principle. People voting in the referendum will be voting for a principle; namely, the principle of having a regional assembly and regional government. They will not be voting for who will be on the list; they will be voting for a change to the system. Therefore, it would be more realistic to expect a greater number of people to vote in those elections and to require that they should do so, before there is any change.
	I know that that did not happen in London, Scotland or Wales, but the number of people in all those places—particularly Wales and London—who could be bothered to turn out was derisory, given that it was a matter that would effect people dramatically, particularly in London. There may not be quite the same effect on the regions, but they will certainly see a difference, and it is proper that, in those circumstances, there should be a threshold for turnout and a threshold against which that turnout should be measured.

Lord Rooker: Unless I misheard him, when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was talking about Scotland, he quoted figures for turnout—because he was critical of the low turnout—that I did not recognise. The referendums that have taken place in Scotland in recent times—in 1979 and 1997—have all had turnouts of over 60 per cent. That was not a figure he used. I thought that he used a figure of about 40 per cent. Even in the referendum in March 1979 the turnout was 63.6 per cent. In 1997, when there were two questions—one on taxation—the turnout was 60.2 per cent. Those figures were good by any stretch of the imagination. London by comparison was absolutely pathetic, at 34 per cent. I do not think one can criticise what happened in Scotland. We all remember that in Wales the turnout was over 50 per cent. It is true that it was only just over—50.1 per cent. That result itself was very close—50.3 per cent in favour of an assembly against 49.7 against. Obviously, that 50 per cent turnout meant that only 25 per cent of people voted "Yes". However, it was a 50 per cent turnout. We are not used to referendums, anyway. Given the scale of those matters, one cannot criticise the turnout in Wales, and particularly not in Scotland, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, did. I may have misheard him, but he was quoting much lower figures.
	I will now deal with the issue. I am not sure whether the Front Bench opposite were advocating that an abstention should count as a "No" vote. That would be the effect of the amendment. I thought that was what they were advocating. One would not have to do anything, and that would then count as a "No" vote. It would be very unsatisfactory in a democracy to be ruled by a decision like that. We think that the fairest, simple measure of a referendum result would be based on the votes that are cast. Everyone is free to vote—if they choose not to do so, their views will not be counted. It is as simple as that. If it is done the other way round, with a threshold of those eligible to vote, one could vote "No" or not vote—and both would count as "No". That has to be unfair by any democratic test.
	The precedent that we are using—and we make no apology for it—is that used in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. We do not think any other way would be fair. There is no obvious way to decide what the level of the threshold would be. I am instinctively a threshold person. I would like to have a hurdle to achieve a good decision, and to encourage people. However, the reality is that it does not work. Therefore, given that there will be an open debate, and people will be free to vote, then it should be those that vote that make the decision. All those issues were debated in the other place. I believe that there was an amendment that proposed that at least 50 per cent of the people had to vote, and a majority of them had to vote "Yes". That is why noble Lords opposite agree to the second half of the amendment. There was also an amendment in the other place that at least 25 per cent of people eligible to vote in a referendum would have to vote in favour. There are difficulties about that, which we do not accept in principle.
	My honourable friend the Minister in the other place explained the effects of the threshold in the recent elections in Serbia—where they twice failed to elect the Prime Minister. Even though he won, he did not get over the threshold. That does include some uncertainty. We need to encourage as many people to vote as possible. We have debated Clause 7, to make the Electoral Commission do things to encourage people to vote, without taking sides. We have to consider every possibility. There is a serious disadvantage with thresholds. I believe that the amendments are proposed from the best possible viewpoint. I am not criticising them, because the purpose behind all the amendments is to try to cajole, persuade and encourage more people to vote. I accept that, because it is being said that we are going to rig the system so that if one does not vote it will not count. If one is really interested, vote. I can understand the reasoning behind that, but I do not believe that the principle is correct.
	On a low turnout—I shall not try to define what that is, so please do not ask, but you will recognise it when you see it—with a knife-edge result, the Secretary of State would have to think seriously about what happens afterwards. Therefore it is not game, set and match on a low turnout—or a derisory turnout—with a tiny majority. One would have to think seriously about the way forward.
	On Amendment No. 119C, effectively to give each elector in the district a veto on the establishment of a regional assembly cannot be right. The majority can be frustrated in that way and it cannot possibly be justified. I freely admit that the turnouts at some of the mayoral elections have not been brilliant. There has not yet been one at 50 per cent. There was a turnout of 42 per cent in Middlesbrough and 42 per cent in North Tyneside and they are the only ones above 40 per cent.
	By the way, looking at the end column, it is interesting to note that the two highest turnouts were all postal ballots. Interesting—listening over there, Lib Dems?

Noble Lords: Yes.

Lord Rooker: The highest turnout is 42 per cent, all postal ballots. One has to look at the experience. Now I digress—

Baroness Blatch: The constitutional outrage is not so much about what happens in a region, but that England, as constituent country of the whole of the United Kingdom, has no say as a country. If there were to be a referendum, I suggest that we should start with the people of England to decide whether they want their country carved up into nine parts. We were denied that choice when we lost the capital—the part in the middle of the donut that was taken out—and we are now being told that the Secretary of State, on the whim of what he thinks is the level of interest, will carve up the rest into eight areas. We are now trying to salvage the best of a bad lot.
	The choice for the people of England is very serious. Scotland has the integrity of the whole country; Wales has the integrity of the whole country; England does not. Even Northern Ireland does. Therefore, this is a serious constitutional point for us.
	Before responding to the bulk of the amendment, I must say that nowhere in the Bill can I see a provision that the Secretary of State has the flexibility not to introduce a regional assembly where the vote is in favour of introducing one. I understand that without reference to flexibility or a threshold, however derisory the turnout or the majority—a majority of one would be sufficient—the vote is for a regional assembly. If the Minister could point out to me the flexibility in the Bill which provides that the Secretary of State may not appoint a regional assembly—

Lord Rooker: I am not prejudging anything. I have told the noble Baroness where the flexibility is—it is the Bill to set up the regional assemblies, and that is a completely different piece of legislation.

Baroness Blatch: That is a lie and a confidence trick on the public. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord is lying. If the people are voting yes or no to a regional assembly, and by whatever the turnout they win that vote, they have every reason to expect a regional assembly. It does not state on the paper, "If you vote for a regional assembly you may not actually get one", and nothing in the Bill suggests that flexibility. There is nothing in this Bill that states: "You can vote for one or against one, but we cannot guarantee you will get one even if you vote for one". I believe that the noble Lord ought to reflect on that flexibility and point to its legal underpinning for the Secretary of State.
	Amendment No. 119 requires a turn-out of 40 per cent. All of my emotions support the amendment of my noble friend, although even 50 per cent is a modest expectation. The minimum requirement on my percentage of 40 per cent and the minimum requirement on my noble friend's percentage of 50 per cent means that a turn-out of a mere 20 per cent plus one or a mere 25 per cent plus one could be a vote in favour of a regional assembly. That would be a fairly poor endorsement of such a huge constitutional change. Even if only one or two areas vote for a regional assembly, it will have an impact on the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is why we have fought so hard to include in the Bill the considerations that the Secretary of State must take into account under Clause 12.
	The constitutional change caused by regional assemblies will mean that areas with two-tier authorities lose their county councils or, indeed, their district councils. A more remote regional assembly will be established. That is not a good deal for local people.
	Contrary to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the setting of a threshold might stimulate people to go out and vote. If they want an assembly badly enough, the knowledge that they have to get over a hurdle of 40 or 50 per cent might stimulate interest rather than the other way round.
	I did not use Scotland or Wales in my examples of poor turn-out; I used London and the mayoral elections. A referendum where only 12 per cent of the people vote for a mayor and 88 per cent either do not vote or vote against having a mayor is a very poor endorsement for such a change.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, "If you do not want regional assemblies you should go out and tell the world. You should get everyone behind you". I say to the noble Lord that we cannot compete with the vast resources of central government, the regional development agencies and the various regional bodies that are already illicitly campaigning for regional assemblies. There is no way that a member of the public or a small group of interested people, such as the one in the North East, can campaign against regional government. They do not stand a chance against the vast resources of these other bodies.

Lord Greaves: Does not the Conservative Party have a vast organisation, with thousands of workers and activists all over the place? I thought that that was what the Conservative Party is about.

Baroness Blatch: I have to admit that we are a bit thin on the ground in the North East. My point is more serious than that. Why leave it to political parties? I have said from the beginning that I do not regard the Bill as party political. I regard it as a constitutional Bill which will affect every person in the land. I do not see the people out there as Conservatives or Liberals organised by party political machines; I see them as having a real stake in the kind of local government they want. As individuals and small groups, they do not have the resources to even begin to compete with the national government and the regional bodies which are already illicitly campaigning.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I understand the noble Baroness's argument. There is obviously some merit in the view that there should be a minimum turn-out. But, from the way in which she expressed these matters, would not someone who wanted to prevent or object to a regional assembly simply have to encourage abstention? If those against having a regional assembly simply abstained, 40 per cent of the whole electorate would positively have to vote in favour of one. Would not that be a problem? In other words, if you wanted to stop a regional assembly you simply would not vote at all and everyone who did vote would have to vote in favour. That means that 40 per cent of the whole electorate would have to vote in favour of a regional assembly, which would be an extraordinary achievement. Under the noble Earl's amendment, 50 per cent would have to vote in favour.
	If there is a threshold, the way to stop a regional assembly is to encourage people not to vote. The worst thing would be to encourage people to vote no because that would lift the turn-out. What is the noble Baroness's answer to that point?

Baroness Blatch: I am not malign enough to consider positive abstention. That was not the thrust of my original argument. It was the noble Lord's interpretation of one of the consequences of my amendment. I am not arguing that, and I never would. Any energies that I have will not be used in persuading people not to vote; they will be used to persuade people to vote against an assembly. That is the point of my amendment.
	The thrust of my amendments and the principle underpinning them are that if there is to be constitutional change in the regions of England, enough people should vote for them to make the assemblies confident, competent bodies with an underpinning support. I am not going down the road of persuading people not to vote in order to depress the turnout. I believe that if people do not want a regional assembly they should vote against it.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: That may not be the noble Baroness's intention, but were this amendment to be on the statute book that would be its effect. Anyone wishing to stop a regional assembly would have every reason to abstain. If I were organising against a regional assembly, I should encourage people not to vote, because that would keep the turnout down.

Baroness Blatch: Forty per cent and 50 per cent are relatively modest figures anyway. As the Minister has said, in Scotland, on both occasions, the turnout would have passed the test in my amendment, and indeed that suggested by my noble friend. The same is true of the 40 per cent figure given. I am not going down the road suggested by the noble Lord. He may like to think that that would be the consequence of the amendment, but I believe that having a regional assembly based on a 10 per cent or 15 per cent turnout with a majority of one is simply unacceptable. That is a possibility, and I simply want to avoid it.

The Earl of Caithness: I agree with all the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. They are the same as those that I have in front of me. There is one figure that he did not mention: in Scotland, if my maths is correct, only 44.6 per cent of the electorate voted "Yes". So 50 per cent of people in Scotland did not vote "Yes"; the same was true in Wales. The Minister mentioned 25 per cent in Wales. He was right about the 60.2 per cent in terms of turnout—but the actual percentage of the electorate voting "Yes" was 44.6 per cent.
	I like the Minister's instinct. I wish that he would follow his instinct and not his brief. He rather likes the idea of thresholds. He has the same feeling as my noble friend Lady Blatch and I have; namely, that the credibility of this exercise could well be diminished by a low turnout and a small majority. A great deal of credibility would be lost and regional assemblies would get off to a bad start.
	I was fascinated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not think that he has listened to much of what I have said during this debate. When I first spoke, I said that I rather liked unitary authorities. This proposal is not so horrible in lots of ways; some quite good things will come from the Bill. What I am trying to do is to make certain that a sufficient number of people vote in a referendum, because that would make the result credible. I do not believe that leaving the matter completely open will serve the right purpose.
	I tabled Amendment No. 119C because there are two aspects to this question. I should have thought that the second would appeal to the Liberal Democrat Party. The first aspect is regional assemblies; but with that, and consequent upon it, is the requirement to get rid of the existing local government structure. The purpose of Amendment No. 119C is to protect the rural areas—about which the Liberal Democrats waxed so lyrical when we last debated this issue; they said how important this was for those areas where Northumberland borders on Scotland. I was trying to help the Liberal Democrat Party to keep their district councils, but if they do not want any help that is up to them.
	This matter needs to be reconsidered before the next stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to spare us some time for a meeting on this and various other points. This is crucial. His instinct is absolutely right: we must try to find a mechanism, not to "up" the turnout—that is not the point of what I am trying to do—but to bring credibility to this operation. It has lost credibility with the mayoral elections in London and devolution in Wales. Scotland is more arguable; one can argue that 44.6 per cent is a good figure, although I would say that one needs to get over 50 per cent. I hope that the Minister will give us time for a meeting between now and another stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 119A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 119, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 119B and 119C, as amendments to Amendment No. 119, not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: This is my final comment on percentages: if my noble friend Lady Hanham was right when she described something like 5,000 responses to the soundings exercise out of a total voting population of about 20 million, I wonder whether the Minister regards that as an adequate return in terms of soundings for starting the process of regional assemblies in this country. We certainly shall return to this, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Tordoff: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Tordoff: The Question is that Amendment No. 119 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
	Division called.
	Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 9, line 3, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Baroness Blatch: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 and Amendment No. 126. The amendments concern the actions of the Secretary of State following a referendum and his subsequent decision that a regional assembly should be established. As a group, the amendments would ensure that the Secretary of State must put into effect the recommendations made by the Boundary Committee. Amendment No. 123 would mean that if the Secretary of State does not agree with the recommendations, he has the option to,
	"make no changes to the existing local government structure within the region".
	I asked the Minister earlier whether the Boundary Committee would be free to recommend that to create single-tier authorities would be too great an upheaval and would run counter to efficient and effective government in the region. He refused to answer that question, from which I deduce that the issue must at least be an open question.
	As the Bill stands, there is no requirement that the Secretary of State pay particular attention to the recommendations made by the Boundary Committee for England in its review of local government, which will have been an extremely costly and disruptive exercise. That a procedure that is so expensive in resources and time may warrant no more than a brief consideration is surely not intended. Hence, we seek assurances that the Secretary of State will not change the recommendations made by the Boundary Committee without good reason. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I am not clear about the overall purpose of this group of amendments. Amendment No. 121 would require us to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Committee concerning local government reorganisation before a regional assembly was established. In practice, it is likely that the orders giving effect to the Boundary Committee's recommendations will be made in advance of an assembly coming into existence. Those orders, however, will have to set dates both for the election to shadow unitary authorities and for the ultimate transfer of functions from the old to the new authorities.
	Whether the transfer of functions which effectively brings the new unitary authorities into existence will actually have taken place by the time that the regional assembly first meets will depend on a number of factors such as the possible need for the Electoral Commission to revise electoral arrangements before there can be elections to the new authorities. Those elections would have to fit in with the current cycle of local authority elections. Therefore, it might be the case that regional assemblies come into existence ahead of the new unitary authorities. We need the flexibility in the Bill so that the limitations on the timing of the local government reorganisation would not unnecessarily delay the setting up of regional assemblies. Nevertheless, I can assure noble Lords that it is our intention to arrange things so that the regional assembly and the new unitary authorities should come into being as close together as possible.
	The amendment would also provide that the Secretary of State must implement all the recommendations sent to him by the Boundary Committee. That unreasonably ties the Secretary of State's hands. For reasons to which I shall come, we need the discretion currently allowed in subsection (2). Indeed the remaining amendments attempt to amend the provisions for the implementation by the Government of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee and the Government's discretion in the implementation process.
	Subsection (2) allows for discretion in the making of an order under this subsection. It provides that an order may be made to give effect to recommendations. Why do we need discretion in making these orders? The answer is simple. The Government may decide that the recommendations of the Boundary Committee are not appropriate. The Secretary of State may receive representations on the recommendations made to him by the Boundary Committee, and he must be able to react to those representations and give them full consideration. That may lead to making modifications to the recommendations or, if necessary, rejecting them. By seeking to remove that ability, the Government are denied the opportunity to consider fully the recommendations in light of circumstances at the time or to react to or reflect representations that may be received.
	Similarly, the amendments seek to remove the ability to implement "all of any" of the Boundary Committee's recommendations. Again, that would remove the Government's discretion and place a duty to implement all or none of the recommendations. The arguments for the inclusion of this provision are the same as those I have just given. The Government may decide that while some recommendations are appropriate, others are not and it is sensible to allow for this discretion.
	The amendment to remove subsection (3) would remove entirely the Government's ability to make modifications, if necessary, to the recommendations of the Boundary Committee.
	While the Boundary Committee is responsible for undertaking a review and making recommendations to the Secretary of State, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for the implementation of any recommendations. Given that responsibility, it is only right that there be provision to exercise discretion over implementation and to make modifications where that is considered appropriate. Once again, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, this is identical to the tried and tested provisions of the 1992 Act.
	Similarly, Clause 15(6) allows for mistakes in an order to be rectified should that be needed. This is not a general order-making power with wide-ranging effect, but a sensible provision limited to correction of errors arising in the preparation of orders where it appears no longer possible to make a further implementation order because the Boundary Committee's recommendations have already been given effect. By including this provision, we have closely followed the tried and tested provisions of the 1992 Act. That Act was not put on the statute book by the present Government, although I should not need to remind the Committee of that. The provision was deemed suitable and appropriate then and we think that it is indeed suitable and appropriate now.
	As for the amendment to allow the Secretary of State to make no changes, that is odd as that is what would happen if no order were made under the clause. Each of the amendments seeks to remove discretion that we believe is proper given the Government's responsibility for the implementation of recommendations. I hope that following that explanation the amendments will not be pressed.

Baroness Blatch: I hardly recognise my amendments from the response that the Minister has given as I argued for flexibility, including the flexibility not to reorganise local government if the Boundary Committee thought that that was appropriate. Earlier the Minister seemed to hint by refusing to answer the question that the Boundary Committee would be free to make a decision that unitary authorities were not appropriate for efficient and effective local government in a region. We have just heard on the previous amendment that a vote for a regional assembly in a referendum does not guarantee that that region will get a regional assembly. We also know that it is entirely in the gift of the Secretary of State to determine from his soundings whether or not there is a sufficient level of interest to hold a referendum. Now we are told that whatever the Boundary Committee decides, the Secretary of State can do what he likes—accept the recommendation, not accept it, modify it—

Lord Rooker: I object to the words "do what he likes". The Secretary of State cannot operate irrationally, unreasonably, on a hunch or as a result of prejudice. He would be subject to judicial review if he did. We are talking about the same powers exercised by secretaries of state of all governments when faced with boundary reviews or even parliamentary reviews. To say that the Secretary of State may do what he likes is simply not true.

Baroness Blatch: That is my interpretation of the flexibility that the Secretary of State has at every stage of the Bill. The soundings have already taken place ahead of the Bill. They were completed as the Bill commenced its passage through this House. The Secretary of State will be free to determine a level of interest. He has to act reasonably as we all know that judicial review is available not to consider the decision he reaches but the way in which he arrives at it. As a result of the discussion on the previous amendment, we now know that if there is a referendum and the vote is for a regional assembly but the Secretary of State deems that the voting turnout was not sufficient, it is possible that those voters will not get what they voted for. Now we are told that there will be flexibility when the Boundary Committee has done its work. I believe that this matter constitutes a Secretary of State's fiefdom without too much check in the system. I shall withdraw the amendments but shall no doubt return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 121 to 126 not moved.]
	Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Payments to Electoral Commission]:
	[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Isles of Scilly]:
	[Amendment No. 126B not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Advice of the Electoral Commission]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 127:
	Page 10, line 28, leave out from "if" to end of line 32 and insert "the Secretary of State is considering whether to cause a referendum to be held in that region about the establishment of an elected assembly for the region"

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 127, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. The amendment would ensure that the Electoral Commission provides advice to the Secretary of State concerning the nature of electoral areas before any referendum is held in the region rather than afterwards, as the Bill is drafted. To allow the electorate to make an informed choice, they must be aware of the type of system that would be put in place if they opted for regional assemblies. An individual's decision as to whether they wish to have a regional assembly will understandably be influenced by exactly how the regional assembly will be organised. If they vote for a regional assembly on the basis of certain expectations that are then unfulfilled, they may withdraw their support too late as their vote is already cast.
	Amendment No. 131 would remove subsection (5) and hence prevent the Secretary of State from altering a previous direction that he had made by making a new direction. That amendment seeks to curb the powers given to the Secretary of State, by removing his ability to make direction after direction while there are no mechanisms in place to challenge his decisions. Subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State complete freedom from any scrutiny, such that he does not even have to consult or seek advice or recommendations from others. He can simply make further direction if he changes his mind. Removing subsection (5) would create more stability and place the onus on the Secretary of State to do everything in his power to get matters right the first time. Surely that must be a good thing. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Clause 19 requires the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice on one or more matters relating to electoral areas or the total number of members to be elected to a regional assembly. Subsection (1) means that that requirement arises only in respect of regions in which a referendum has been held and it is proposed to establish an assembly.
	Amendment No. 127 would instead require the Secretary of State to give such a direction to the Electoral Commission if he were considering whether to cause a referendum to be held in that region. The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, clearly sets out the framework that we propose for the size of elected regional assemblies and the balance between constituency and top-up members. We believe voters will be able to take an informed decision on the basis of the policy we have set out.
	We believe that the Boundary Committee should conduct local government reviews before a referendum is held in a region because there are many possible options that the committee could recommend. It could recommend a wholly unitary structure for current two-tier areas based on counties, districts or something different. In this case, the review needs to be carried out before any referendum so that voters know the basics before voting. They will already know the basic proposals with regard to electoral arrangements.
	Requiring the Electoral Commission to provide advice on that before the referendum will simply distract from the main issues at the referendum. We believe that the proper time to seek advice on electoral areas is once people have voted for the establishment of a regional assembly. That is why, as currently drafted, the requirement applies only for regions where the Secretary of State proposes to establish an elected assembly, following a referendum held under Clause 1.
	Amendment No. 131 would mean that a direction to the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral areas and total number of assembly members could not be varied. It is standard practice to include such a provision in an Act with regard to direction-making powers. It is a sensible approach so as to cater, for example, for unforeseen circumstances or indeed if it is necessary to give the Electoral Commission more time to make its recommendation on a review. That is precedented by a similar provision in Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, which relates to directions made in relation to structural review. Another example is Section 48(7) of the Local Government Act 2000.
	Amendment No. 132 would mean that the Electoral Commission was not required to submit its advice given under a direction under Clause 19 within less than a year of being given the direction. We would, of course, discuss our proposals for the timetable for the preparation and submission of advice with the Electoral Commission before finalising it. Twelve months appears to be a rather arbitrary period, and we see no merit in putting that on the face of the Bill.
	Of course, in giving a direction, we would be obliged to consider how long it would be sensible to give the Electoral Commission, taking into account that those who are interested must be given adequate opportunity to comment on the subject matter of the advice and any draft advice. With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has gone through about the next five amendments. Was that his intention? I moved only Amendment No. 127 and spoke to Amendment No. 131. He has referred to Amendments Nos. 130, 132, 135 and, I believe, 137.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I apologise to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may return to the amendments in question—that is, Amendments Nos. 127 and 131. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept the explanation that he gave some minutes ago before he went on to talk about all the other amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 128:
	Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) the balance of representation for rural and urban areas"

Baroness Blatch: It just proves that the Ministers are not listening to the arguments. They do not even wait for the arguments now; they simply press straight on with the answers. In order to put the question to the answer given by the noble Lord—I do not know what he will say in response to it—I now move Amendment No. 128 and shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134.
	Amendment No. 128 seeks to add an extra area on which the Electoral Commission should advise the Secretary of State—that is, the matter of establishing a balanced representation for rural and urban areas. The one theme that I have taken from the Government throughout the proceedings in another place and throughout those in this House thus far is that, frankly, the rural areas can go hang. There is no protection for them anywhere in the Bill. There is no protection in the soundings issue, and there is none in the way that the voting will be counted. There is no attempt to build in protection for the rural areas.
	At the same time as considering where the electoral areas should fall, it is essential to bear in mind the need to ensure that the rural voice is not drowned out by a more populous metropolitan neighbour. There is a real risk that, unless a specific effort is made when designing the boundaries, rural voters will find themselves in the minority with important countryside issues overlooked while urban issues are prioritised.
	Few people live in the countryside and therefore few votes are to be gained from tackling rural matters. Where there is any conflict of interest—for example, in greenbelt planning—the rural viewpoint will always be a secondary issue. Rural voters will feel alienated and cut off, unable to relate to the very people who are supposed to represent them. Even if they are active in voting in a referendum, they can easily be outnumbered by those in urban areas.
	To avoid that, there should be an explicit commitment on the face of the Bill to protect the rights of the rural voter by requiring the Electoral Commission to establish a balance so that the rural communities have a guaranteed voice. Amendment No. 133 would provide more detail of the areas to which the Electoral Commission should pay attention when deciding upon the best boundaries for electoral areas. Specifically they should respect the historical nature of county and county borough councils.
	The Bill currently puts no value whatever on maintaining the existing pattern of county councils. These are institutions to which people feel a strong allegiance. With the extensive disruptions and reorganisations that establishing a regional assembly will entail, surely there is every reason to stick as closely as possible to current arrangements.
	Regional assemblies would be better off with this amendment as people would be happier to accept and work with a system that is familiar rather than one that is foreign and where there may be considerable cost as adjustment occurs with no particular benefit.
	Can the Minister guarantee—he did not do so in his answer just now—that arranging the electoral areas will not simply be a process of change for change's sake? Amendment No. 134 would remove from the list of what the Electoral Commission should have regard to when making its recommendations guidance given by the Secretary of State.
	Surely the Electoral Commission is directed towards achieving certain goals in the creation of electoral areas, paying attention to the importance of reflecting the identities and interests of local communities as one such goal and attempting to create electoral areas with similar numbers of people as another. Hence, Clause 21 does a good job with its paragraphs (a) and (b).
	However, paragraph (c) is more problematic. What is the point of bringing in the Electoral Commission at all if the Secretary of State, first, sets strict guidelines as to what its recommendations should be and, secondly, may then choose to ignore the advice that it gives? Surely the point of bringing in the Electoral Commission to carry out that important function is to bring in experts who can dedicate time and energy to deciding the best possible boundaries for electoral areas. That would be undermined if the Secretary of State has fixed ideas of how electoral areas should look and bypasses the advice of the Electoral Commission by making a judgment in advance as to what its conclusions should be.
	Throughout the Bill the Liberal Democrats have tabled similar amendments about identities and communities of interest. I hope that they will see something positive in some of the amendments in this group. It is bad enough that the Secretary of State is able to take or leave the Electoral Commission's advice if he pleases, but worse still if he can place rigid limits on the final recommendations. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: This is a curious part of the Bill, particularly Clause 19 which is headed,
	"Advice of the Electoral Commission".
	It details advice that the Electoral Commission would be expected to give about the electoral areas, the number of such areas, the names and so on. Yet here we have a clause that makes an assumption about what the electoral system will be without setting out what it will be. It is based on the assumption set out in the White Paper that the electoral system will be a form of the additional member system, with first-past-the-post constituencies and a top-up list across the whole region. I understand that the proposal is to provide at least a degree of proportionality, although perhaps not much. However, it does not state that but simply makes the assumption.
	That is yet another example of where the Bill puts the cart before the horse. It assumes that when Parliament legislates to set up regional assemblies it will choose such an electoral system. The Government may want Parliament to choose that, but I am sure that we shall have vigorous debates in the two Houses about the electoral system. Some people may want the first-past-the-post system—there are dinosaurs everywhere—but there may also be those who want a more sophisticated and effective form of proportional representation such as the single transferable vote, which may be suggested from these Benches.
	I make the point that the situation in front of the Committee is based on assumptions that may not be true. It seems extraordinary to legislate in detail for an electoral system that is not even named or described in the Bill; it is just implied in various clauses.
	If the noble Baroness will forgive me saying so, her amendments are a little strange. She asks for a balance of representation for rural and urban areas. I do not know what that means. Does it mean that rural areas, regardless of the number of electors, have to have as many seats as urban areas, or does it mean that the boundaries of the areas have to be drawn so that some of them are distinctly rural constituencies? In trying to make sense of that, those are the only two conclusions that I can draw. Clearly, the balance of representation for different areas has to depend on the number of people living in each area. If rural areas are a minority in a particular region, that may be unfortunate, but a fact of life. One cannot fiddle an electoral system in favour of certain areas as opposed to others.
	It is worth remembering that, according to the Government's proposals, we are talking of constituencies that may be as large as two or three parliamentary constituencies. If the whole of the North West has 30 or 35 members, or the whole of the North East has 25 members, they would make enormous constituencies. How one balances representation for rural and urban areas in those circumstances I am unsure. With respect to the noble Baroness, that is silly.
	Amendment No. 133 is even more odd. It states that,
	"in particular, the importance of preserving the historic identity of county and county borough councils".
	I do not know whether the noble Baroness is talking about the historic counties. If, at any time, she would like to come to our part of the world I will take her to the main road between Colne and Skipton where one goes through two sets of county boundaries. There are the present county boundaries of Lancashire one way and North Yorkshire the other, and then there are the historic county boundaries which say West Riding of Yorkshire one way and Historic County of Lancashire Palatine the other. They are a few miles apart.
	Some people get very worked up about historic county boundaries—for example, the campaign for real Yorkshire and so on. They have no relevance to modern local government. My recollection of county borough councils is that they were abolished in 1973. In 1974 they went out of existence. The City of Leeds no doubt was a county borough council at the time as were places such as Burnley, Blackburn, Blackpool and Preston in Lancashire. It is a nonsense to try to maintain their integrity as wholes in the middle of the present Lancashire. With the greatest respect, I do not think that these amendments have been thought out.

Lord Rooker: For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion, I shall speak only to Amendments Nos. 128, 133 and 134, as indeed did my noble friend in the previous debate only refer to the three amendments which were tabled relevant to that debate, contrary to what the noble Baroness said. She is confused and not my noble friend.

Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord reads Hansard he will know that the noble Lord mentioned at least Amendment No. 132 and I am not sure that he did not also mention Amendment No. 135. He definitely mentioned Amendment No. 132 and we have not reached it yet.

Lord Rooker: We can check in Hansard for what my noble friend said. Our advice is that he spoke to the relevant amendments. Anyway, I just make clear that those are the three I shall deal with, which are the three referred to by the noble Baroness.
	Amendment No. 128 would mean that the Secretary of State could seek the commission's advice on the balance of representation for rural and urban areas if he thought that appropriate.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to ensure that all parts of the region are represented in the assembly. We realise that if we were simply to require all electoral areas to have a broadly equal number of electors, a rural area would have to be much larger than an urban area. That could make it difficult for the assembly member to represent the needs of the whole area.
	However, the interests of rural communities—and it is paramount to make sure that they are not snuffed out—can be taken into account by the commission. The Bill does not require the Electoral Commission to give advice regardless. So there is no question that the commission cannot look at the special issues involved.
	Clause 21 specifically outlines what the Electoral Commission must have particular regard to when exercising its functions under Part 3; in other words, when preparing its advice. Alongside the need to secure so far as practicable electoral areas with similar numbers of electors is the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Such communities, by definition, can be rural communities.
	Furthermore, the requirement to take into account the need to secure electoral areas with similar numbers of electors is qualified by the requirement to take account of special geographic considerations. As is well known, there is one constituency in the country which is extremely small. One could not extend it because the sea is in the way one way and the mountains the other. I refer to the constituency of Copeland of my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham. I do not know the size of the electorate, but it is quite small. However, its geographical considerations are such that it would be impractical and unfair to have a wider area simply because of the mountains and the sea.
	So, as the Explanatory Notes say, this issue is designed to address problems that could arise if no regard were paid to the fact that an area is sparsely populated. Paragraph 71 is worth quoting. It states:
	"For an electoral area to have a similar number of electors to an urban electoral area in the same region, the rural area would need to be much larger. This could make it more difficult for its assembly member to represent the needs of the whole area. So in such a case, the need for effective representation . . . could outweigh the need for similarity in numbers . . . between areas".
	So the amendment is unnecessary.
	Amendment No. 133 would add in another matter to which the commission must have regard:
	"the importance of preserving the historic identity of county and county borough councils".
	I shall not labour the point which has been made that county boroughs do not exist. However, I understand the thrust behind the amendment: our attachment to our history and geography—our heritage, if you like. People are sensitive about that—none more so than elected representatives at either council or parliamentary level when the name of their ward or constituency must be chosen.
	One always wants to preserve historic links—not because of a dewy-eyed view; they are an important part of our heritage. That tradition extends just as much to urban as to rural areas. I take second place to no one in making clear that we attach great importance to it.
	Clause 21(a) already requires the Electoral Commission to have regard, in particular, to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. In formulating its advice, the commission will have regard to local government boundaries. It will also consider the extent to which communities identify with their county and with more local geographical areas. As I said, the amendment refers to county boroughs, but the clause's provisions will ensure that that history and sense of identity will be continued.
	It may be worth putting on record that if as a result of any local government re-organisation a county council as an administrative unit is reorganised, that will not mean abolishing the counties. We will continue to promote county identities. The Government will make changes to the definition of "county" for the purposes of sheriffs and lord-lieutenants, so that counties continue to reflect the ceremonial and traditional arrangements that exist today. As in previous reorganisations of local government, we shall also consider the establishment of charter trustees to ensure that our historic towns and cities, if affected by structural change, retain their privileges and historic identity. That is fundamental.
	I may as well put on record that in any change to local government arrangements as a result of a local government review, we foresee no effect on the role of the Lord Lieutenant or High Sheriff. If there is a boundary change between two county areas as a result of a local government review, the area represented may change to reflect that.
	Turning to Amendment No. 134, Clause 21(c) requires the Electoral Commission to have regard to guidance issued by the Government when preparing and submitting its advice on electoral areas and total numbers of assembly members of elected regional assemblies. It is entirely proper that it should.
	We are not seeking to interfere with the commission's independence. The preparation of advice will be for it. All that it will be required to do is to have particular regard, among other relevant matters, to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The power to give guidance does not mean that the Secretary of State will be able to dictate the advice that he receives—I make that absolutely clear. It will only be among the whole gamut of relevant factors to which it must have particular regard.
	Just as in local government reviews, it is important that the Boundary Committee should have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, so should the Electoral Commission, when giving guidance to the Secretary of State for purposes in connection with the establishment of assemblies. It is clearly right that, when preparing its advice, the Commission should have an indication of what we consider to be important factors affecting the composition and total number of members of an elected assembly.
	I shall not be drawn down the road of discussing particular systems, but the single transferable vote has no legs. One day the Liberal Democrats will have to wake up to that. I favour proportional representation—I converted many years ago—but if they are serious about PR, they will have to dump STV. The same applies to the Electoral Reform Society. It does not have a prayer. For a start, it sets party member against party member to fight the seats, as is the case in Ireland. It destroys the historic link of constituency or ward boundaries with single members.
	There is no perfect system. The best that we have come up with is the additional member system (AMS), which we have used in this country. Under that system we at least get constituency representatives. I know that we get a top-up, but it can be manipulated in various ways. I am putting a case that goes well beyond my remit.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am provoked. Did he say that the top-up system could be manipulated? It was an interesting remark. Will he be prepared to retract his statement about STV having no legs in future when, as is highly likely, it is adopted in Scottish local government within the next few years?

Lord Rooker: "Manipulated" was probably a bad choice of word. There is flexibility in how to achieve the top-up members. There are several routes. Let us not forget that this county imposed the AMS system in post-war Germany. It has worked reasonably successfully there. I do not think that STV has any legs. We will not make any progress on PR in this country while the Liberal Democrats stick to STV.

Baroness Hamwee: For how long would the Minister speak on the subject if he were intending to do so?

Lord Rooker: That is the problem—for much too long. I hope that I have responded to the noble Baroness's three amendments to her satisfaction.

Baroness Blatch: I wish to reflect on the helpful comments made in the middle of the discussion. At least the noble Lord's heart is in the right place, as he expressed some empathy at least with the aim of my amendments. I am grateful for that.
	I do not wish to enter into the details of the spat between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches about proportional representation, except to say that in European elections there are no constituencies. In my region we simply vote for eight people. The parties then decide who the top-up members shall be.
	One of our concerns about rural areas is that regional assemblies will have so few members representing very large areas—from 2.5 million in one part of the country to 8 million in another. There will be 25 to 35 assembly members. It is possible that rural areas will be seriously under-represented by top-up members. All the political action is much more likely to take place in urban and suburban areas, so we are concerned about the protection of rural areas.
	The noble Lord has given me something to think about and a lot to read. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 130:
	Page 11, line 8, at end insert "and shall specify how many members of the assembly not directly elected by an electoral area are to be appointed"

Baroness Blatch: This amendment would provide that when the Secretary of State gives the direction to the Electoral Commission, it may include not only a maximum or minimum number of electoral areas, but detail on how many members of the future assembly would be appointed. Surely it is important that the Electoral Commission has that information prior to making its recommendations in order to achieve a fuller picture of the nature of the planned assemblies.
	As there are to be two types of members of regional assemblies—elected and appointed—presumably each shall perform a slightly different role. It makes sense to provide the Electoral Commission with a breakdown of how the Secretary of State intends those roles to develop. The Electoral Commission could then consider that information when making its recommendations. We know that the issue is causing huge tension in Scotland. A member with a constituency has a fixed point of reference, whereas a top-up member floats around on the edge looking for a role. It would be helpful to have the matter sorted out before the Electoral Commission has to make its recommendations. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness refers to the issue of top-up members in Scotland. I accept that the system is new to this country. I hope that, over time, it can be moulded. We can make an electoral system do what we want it to do, and it is all right to do that. For example, we could write it into the rules that top-up members could not stand for election in a direct constituency within, say, 10 years. That would stop them undermining the constituency members, as is alleged in Scotland, where top-up Members with no constituency are free to try to undermine constituency Members. There are all kinds of things that can be done to prevent such difficulties and make the system run as well as possible.
	The objective of the exercise is to make representation broadly comparable to the votes cast by the electorate. "First-past-the-post" does not do that, which is why there are no Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland. However, the Conservatives are well represented in the Scottish Parliament because of the additional member system. It is the same in Wales. It is important that a major area of political opinion is not snuffed out, as it would be under "first past the post". That is what has happened in Scotland and Wales in the national Parliament but not in the devolved parliaments. There are several ways of overcoming such difficulties. I shall not refer to any more details of the electoral system, but we are in that part of the Bill, and it is important.
	Amendment No. 130 would mean that a direction to the Electoral Commission would have to specify how many members of the assembly not elected by electoral area were to be appointed. The amendment would unhelpfully constrain the Electoral Commission's flexibility to offer advice on electoral matters. In our White Paper, we indicated that there would be 25 to 35 elected members for each assembly and that the proportion of regional list members would be around a third of the total number of seats. The Government might want to specify only a range for the total number of members and the number of electoral areas and give the commission the necessary scope to tweak the balance between the list members and the constituency members to reflect the electoral geography of the areas that make sense for the region concerned. The composition would be tailor-made for the region.
	The amendment would tie the commission's hands and prevent it from advising the Secretary of State as to the best detailed balance between constituency and top-up members. We should not second-guess the commission's work, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. The issue can be revisited not only in the context of other parts of this Bill but when the orders are being made and the main legislation is being considered. If it were important to specify to the commission how many list members there would be, it could be done indirectly under Clause 19(4). That subsection would enable the direction to specify the total number of members and the total number of electoral areas, with the number of list members being the difference between the two.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but I am not sure that it satisfies in every sense. I referred to the Scottish example, and I believe that there are real tensions up there. A Member of another place said that there were local councillors, MEPs, national MPs, directly elected MSPs and top-up MSPs and that they were all running around looking for a role. They include some of the people who thought that, if we added to that list elected Members of this House, people would wonder what they were doing.
	In England, we are doing something similar: it will produce people with a constituency of between 250,000 and 500,000 electors. One person will represent over 250,000 people. There is no way that one person can relate to all the problems and concerns that a constituency of that magnitude may have. Then we would have the top-up members. In a region with 8 million people, there will be a few top-up members for all those people. We do not even know what the balance between the two will be. It would be helpful to know, ahead of the game, what the split will be. How many constituencies will there be? How many electors per constituency will there be? How many top-up members will there be?
	We are not going to get those answers at this stage, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Preparation and submission of advice]:
	[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Electoral Commission exercise of functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Payments to Electoral Commission]:
	[Amendment No. 134A not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Funding for regional chambers]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 135:
	Page 12, line 23, after "the" insert "regional planning"

Baroness Blatch: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 136. Again, it is a great pity that we are discussing the amendment at this stage, because it is important. Amendment No. 135 states that the money provided in the form of a grant to regional assemblies should be used for regional planning. The amendment challenges the Government to make clear precisely what powers will be devolved from central government to regional assemblies. If these powers stretch only as far as planning—and the Government have yet to convince us otherwise—then it is only right that money should be made available for this purpose. If there are other areas where regional assemblies will gain powers from Westminster, then they should be identified in the Bill. Consequently, grant money could also be used for that purpose. It seems altogether wrong for regional assemblies to be provided with an indefinite sum from central government, with no corresponding breakdown of what its duties are likely to be.
	Amendment No. 136 refers to the making of grants, following the discharge of regional assembly functions relating to spatial planning. The amendment seeks a guarantee that whenever a grant is made to a regional assembly, it is done by order, so that there is at least a chance for parliamentary scrutiny. It is only proper that such grants are considered by Parliament, so that there is an opportunity to analyse the costs of running regional assemblies in relation to the benefits which they bring to the community. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: We have Amendment No. 135A in this group. I want to know if there is any significance in the term "activities", rather than what might more normally be referred to as the "carrying out of functions", or, in the amendment to which the noble Baroness has spoken, the "discharge of functions". "Activities" is a good, straightforward term. I do not object to it, and one must assume that the activities would be intra vires. However, it is not the language to which we are accustomed. It could be that there is nothing sinister in this at all. I hope the Minister can assure me of that.

Lord Rooker: I do not want a play on words about "activities". I do not know what other words in the thesaurus would do. Parliamentary counsel has chosen that word. I do not know if it could have been "functions", but there is obviously a reason for choosing "activities". If there is a special reason, I have no doubt that I will be told. I do not think it should unduly worry the noble Baroness.
	Earlier on, I had a good note that was passed to me after I had made some point, and I tucked it away in one of the folders, which I disposed of about half an hour ago. That was on the principle of funding—"no new money, no new powers", and was to remind me to point out that regional assemblies, while having no new powers and no new money, would take over aspects of the Government Offices. When I talked about new money, I meant new function money. There is a great deal of money already going out into the regions via the Government Offices and so forth, and the regional assemblies would take over part of that activity. I wanted to say that, so that I am not accused later on of misleading the House. I meant "no new money, no new powers", but there is existing money and there are existing powers. However, as I said, I disposed of the note because I had tucked it in another folder.
	Amendment No. 135 seeks to limit the new grant-making power just to the funding of the chambers' regional planning activities. We do not believe that that is necessary. There is no sensible reason for us to have to pay grant to the chambers under two separate Acts of Parliament. It is much better to have a clear and specific power to pay the grant to the chambers.
	Amendment No. 135A seems intended to limit the grant payment to the statutory functions of the regional chambers. However, not all the activities for which we may wish to pay grant are statutory functions; for example, the scrutiny of the regional development agency, which is funded by the chambers' fund, is not arguably a statutory function. It is an activity which the Government have funded under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, but that does not make it statutory. The Regional Development Agencies Act 1988 does not explicitly empower chambers to do anything. It requires the RDA itself, for example, to take into account advice from, and to consult with the chamber.
	I understand the motivation behind the amendment, but I do not believe that it works; nor is it necessary or sensible. Clause 23 as it stands sets the right basis for the Government to be able to work to support the chambers financially in their valuable work.
	Amendment No. 136 would mean that a grant to the regional chambers in connection with their role as regional planning bodies could be made only by means of an order. But because of Clause 27(1) and (2), that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. That would mean both Houses of Parliament annually debating £6 million of expenditure. That is not a sensible use of Parliament's time. Nor is it an approach followed, for example, in relation to the grant-making powers we are already using under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act.
	I do not deny that this is an important clause—any funding of regional chambers will set bells ringing and lights flashing at whatever hour we are sitting and it is important that I am able to satisfy the movers of the amendments that they are not necessary.

Baroness Blatch: I believe that like Topsy these will grow and the sums of money that will flow will increase. The noble Lord said that Clause 27 would have to come under the affirmative resolution procedure. No, it does not. We can make a special arrangement for it. We can bring it in under the negative procedure simply by amending the Bill to achieve that. That is not a strong argument for not accepting Amendment No. 136.
	The beginning of Chapter 4 refers to powers and provides that assemblies will be given a range of powers to help them deliver these strategies. They will therefore be a delivery agent of some kind and they will take on some of the functions from Westminster, from government offices, from regional development agencies or other bodies in the region referred to in paragraph 4.2. One must then ask what will happen to government offices. They will remain post the establishment of regional assemblies and so, too, will RDAs. There will be a little spreading around of some of the work, but they will be given powers—the word appears in the summary of Chapter 4 and in the body of the chapter.
	We still do not know what powers they will have to determine anything. Therefore, if it serves no other purpose, it is important that if an order has to be made explicit in it will be the sum of money and the purposes for which it is being granted. That is the whole purpose of my Amendments Nos. 135 and 136.
	However, I have heard what the noble Lord has said and I shall reflect on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 137:
	Page 12, line 24, after "grant" insert "shall be subject to a condition that no part of it shall be used for any purpose in connection with campaigning for or against any question to be put in a referendum pursuant to section 1, or in anticipation of such a referendum and otherwise, and"

Baroness Blatch: In speaking to Amendment No. 137, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147.
	Amendment No. 137 seeks to forbid the use of a grant provided by the Secretary of State to a regional chamber from being used to campaign for a particular outcome in the event of a referendum. It should be clear on the face of the Bill that taxpayers' money should not be used for this purpose. I am sure that we all agree that this is a wasteful use of resources that could be better spent elsewhere—in which case, there is every reason for making this explicit in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 147 seeks to exclude payments to regional chambers from the list of bodies described in the Bill as qualifying for money from Parliament. It is a probing amendment which seeks to obtain from the Minister an explanation of why the funding of regional chambers is examined in a Bill which relates to the establishment of regional assemblies. There is already extensive legislation in the 1998 Act which deals with regional chambers. It is not clear for what purpose the issue is brought up again here.
	As we have already discussed, it is obviously out of hand for taxpayers' money to be used to fund campaigning in the run-up to a referendum. Can the Minister give a legitimate reason for providing funding from Parliament to these voluntary bodies? Can he give an assurance that this is not a major change in the nature of funding regional chambers which the Government are attempting to slip in without too much notice in the regional assemblies Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Baroness. As she said, Amendment No. 137 would rule out government grant being used to fund either a "Yes" or a "No" campaign in a referendum by requiring a condition of grant to that effect. This has been a theme from the first hour of our debates three weeks ago. I have made it clear on many occasions that there is a standard condition for the grant which currently goes to regional chambers. It is:
	"The accountable body may not use any grant paid under [the] funding agreement for expenditure falling within any of the following categories—
	(a) expenditure on activities of a political or exclusively religious nature e.g. campaigning for, publicising and promoting the case for an elected regional assembly".
	We do not believe that there is any need to have the provisions of Amendment No. 137 on the face of the Bill. Again, if anyone has complaints about the misuse of funds, there is a tried and tested complaints procedure for that purpose.
	Amendment No. 147 seeks to amend Clause 28 so that the Secretary of State has no power to pay grants to chambers under Clause 23 from money voted by Parliament. But there is no other source from which the Secretary of State could pay grant if moneys are not voted by Parliament. This is an attempt to undermine policy on decentralisation. It would stop us supporting regional chambers in their work and particularly in their preparation of regional spatial strategies. This approach is unsupportable. It reflects a dislike of anything happening in the regions.
	The money has to be used for legitimate purposes which are not part of a fiddle or of political campaigning. We have repeatedly said that. There is no difference between us on this issue, as Ministers in another place have made clear. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that there is no justification for having the provisions of the two amendments on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State has to get money from somewhere, and he cannot get other than that provided by Parliament.

Baroness Blatch: Other than that provided by the taxpayer to Parliament. That is the only money the Government have to allocate to other bodies.
	The Minister referred to spatial planning in the context of regional chambers. My understanding, if Box 4.1 is anything to go by, is that spatial planning will be a function of the regional assemblies, not of the chambers. Is there to be another split responsibility? Will spatial planning be the responsibility of the chambers and the responsibility of the regional assemblies? If so, that will cause huge confusion because it is a particularly controversial area of policy.

Lord Rooker: It has been made clear that they are one and the same thing. We have already debated this. In some areas of the country, regional chambers are already calling themselves "regional assemblies". They are the same bodies.

Baroness Blatch: But when the regional assemblies are established they will not be the same bodies. The regional assemblies will be totally new, with new memberships.

Lord Rooker: I know, but we shall not have the chambers. What is the use of the chambers when we have an elected regional assembly?

Baroness Blatch: We have learnt something else.

Lord Rooker: It is common sense.

Baroness Blatch: It would also be common sense if the RDAs, the Government Offices, the learning skills councils and some of the other bodies mentioned earlier in the debate were removed, so that the regional assemblies had a function in the region.

Lord Rooker: No, we need to look at the basics. Not all the functions of the Government Offices are being, as it were, transferred to the regional assemblies. There will still be a role for the Government Offices of the Regions. They will be slimmed down, it is true, because some staff will move over to the regional assembly. That is why we say that there is a gross cost and a net cost of setting up an assembly. We have given a figure for what we estimate to be part of the net savings—I believe it is £5 million—on the transfer of staff. But there will still be a role for the Government Offices of the Regions and for other government departments whose functions and activities are not part of the regional assembly. The Home Office is a good example.

Baroness Blatch: I hope the Minister will forgive me, but the debate that has been held by the Government throughout this process has been about bringing democracy to those bodies that are out in the regions. Most will still be there post the establishment of regional assemblies. We have just heard of one that will not be; namely, the planning chambers. But the Government Offices, the learning and skills councils, the sector skills councils and the regional development agencies will continue to operate in the regions, at some cost to central government. Regional assemblies will be superimposed upon them. This is not what the Government have argued for as the rationale for introducing regional assemblies.
	The Minister keeps repeating his point about there being no more money in the regions. The regional assemblies will have precepting powers. If they are to substitute for the chambers, they will not only have government grant but powers to precept on the other local authorities in the region. So they will have more money. They will have new powers. They are not even established bodies yet. Once they are established, they will be given powers, and those powers will be new. They will come from somewhere. As the noble Lord has said, some will come from national government, and some will come from the regional bodies in the area.
	What we have been attempting to tease out of all these debates is what will be left. Will it be a minor sharing of some of the things that the Government Offices and the RDAs presently do and all of the things that the regional chambers do? We are merely trying to make sense of what this creature will be when it is up and running. The noble Lord's answer to most of our questions has been: "Wait and see. All will be revealed". But the whole point of passing a Bill in Parliament is to understand what we are legislating for. At this stage, we simply do not know. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Enactment establishing assemblies immaterial]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 12, leave out line 36 and insert—
	"This Act shall not come into force until there is an enactment conferring"

Baroness Hanham: Clause 24 enables the Secretary of State to use powers set out in this Bill once it has been enacted, regardless of whether legislation exists enabling him to establish elected regional assemblies. This seems inadvisable and to some extent illogical. A regional assemblies Bill might never make it to Royal Assent, yet the powers conferred by this preparations Bill would still be able to be exercised. It is for that reason that we challenge the inclusion of Clause 24.
	Amendment No. 138 gives an alternative version. The implication of this Bill, as we all know, is that people will be asked to decide in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly for their region, but the powers of the assembly will not have been defined by statute. I shall not delay the Committee long: we believe that the information in the White Paper is not a sufficient basis on which to hold a referendum. The amendment proposes that the wording of Clause 24 should be amended to say that the Act,
	"shall not come into force until there is an enactment conferring",
	power on the Secretary of State to establish elected regional assemblies. Amendment No. 139 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 25.
	Amendment No. 140 is more of a probing amendment than anything else. Why should Parts 2 and 4 not be subject to the same two-month commencement rule as the other parts of the Bill? This is more evidence of the Government's intention to rush on as quickly as possible.
	Previously in Committee, my noble friend Lady Blatch gave the Minister a run for his money about the Government's timetable for the initiation of the Boundary Committee's reviews and the eventual establishment of regional assemblies. We now have that on record. All I ask here is to be given some explanation about why Parts 2 and 4 are treated differently regarding commencement. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I wish through Amendment No. 140A to probe further into Clause 25 than the noble Baroness has done. It provides that the preceding provisions of the Bill—those contained in Clauses 1 to 24—come into force at a certain time, except Parts 2 and 4. Why is there a distinction? What has happened to Clause 26 onwards? Those provisions contain some pretty important provisions but do not appear to be covered. When will the provisions to which Clause 25(1) does not apply come into force?
	I have examined other pieces of legislation to see what they say about commencement. Where provisions are to come into effect on the date the Bill is enacted, it normally says so. My researches were not extensive. It was a question of what I had on the shelf at the time. However, I could not find an example of the matter being left entirely open. Perhaps the style of parliamentary drafting is changing. I would be grateful for clarification.

Lord Rooker: I shall try and cover all the amendments. I am in some difficulty, because there is a new clause floating around. My noble friend Lord Evans is checking on it for me.
	Amendment No. 138 would prevent anything being done under the Act until legislation was in place enabling the regional assemblies to be established. In that case, we do not really need this Act of Parliament, do we? The amendment would turn things upside down. It would delay the process of setting up elected assemblies in regions that want them. I presume that that is the plan. We want to give people the opportunity to have an assembly if they want one and to give them that choice during this Parliament. That is what we are pledged to do.
	I recognise the issue about people voting for or against establishing an assembly before the legislation to do so is enacted. I understand the constant theme throughout our debates. This is because people allegedly would not know enough about the functions, but it is not as though we have not had the White Paper. We have set out our proposals and will base the legislation on the White Paper. There is work to be done, such as the Boundary Committee's recommendations, and so on. I realise that.
	Parliamentary time is in short supply, so it makes no sense to use it to examine and enact a substantive Bill before we know that people in at least one region want to establish an elected assembly. The legislation will not be brought forward until there is a satisfactory yes vote in a region. It is exactly the same two-stage process we used in London, Scotland and Wales, so there is nothing novel about it.
	Amendment No. 139 would prevent this Bill being enacted before the Act setting out the powers and constitutional arrangements was in force. The amendment would severely delay the process of setting up the assemblies.
	Once we have received the Boundary Committee's recommendations for local government in the region, we will publish a short statement of our proposals. It will be a summary of what the assemblies will do, how they will work and our proposals for local government reorganisation, so that when people vote they will know the implications of their vote. That is a two-stage process that we have used before, quite satisfactorily. There is no complaint to be made in logic or fundamental principle about this two-stage process. If people did not vote in the referendums, there would not have been the legislation, and valuable parliamentary time would have been used for something unsatisfactory. It would not make sense.
	Amendment No. 140 would prevent Parts 2 and 4 from commencing on Royal Assent. Part 2 relates to local government reviews and Part 4 to the new power for funding the existing regional chambers. The purpose of commencing these parts early is to prevent unnecessary delay in starting local government reviews and to ensure that a suitable mechanism for funding the regional planning responsibilities of the regional chambers is up and running as soon as possible. That is the purpose of the different commencement times.
	Amendment No. 140A relates to Clause 25(1), which means that Parts 1, 3 and 5 of the Bill come into force two months after Royal Assent. The amendment would mean that those parts of the Bill came into force as soon as the Bill received Royal Assent. There is obviously a keenness for referendums. Clause 25 allows Parts 2 and 4 to come into force on Royal Assent, which the amendment would prevent. The purpose of commencing these parts early is to prevent unnecessary delays, as I said. We have heard arguments that local government reviews should take place after the referendums are held, but we believe it essential that the local government reviews are carried out before the referendum. Unless the reviews are completed before the referendum, people voting in the referendum will be unaware of the implication of voting. We must put that clearly—a good story is worth repeating, because I obviously did not get it across earlier. People need to know what they are voting for, and it is our job to ensure that they have all the necessary information.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why Clauses 26 onwards were not referred to. We do not need to do that because, without explicitly referring to them, they come into force on Royal Assent. That is probably part of some legislation elsewhere, dealing with the passage of Bills into Acts.
	Clause 25(1) refers to "preceding provisions", while subsection (2) derogates from the rule in subsection (1), since Parts 2 and 4 precede Clause 25 and need to come into effect immediately. That is a long-winded way of making a separate case for a special commencement date for Parts 2 and 4.
	There is no ulterior motive in having different dates for different parts. We simply want to ensure that different organisations gel. Some can keep going, but others we need legislation for. As regards the funding of the existing regional chambers, we do not want any hiatus or black hole between one organisation coming to an end and the new one starting.

Baroness Hamwee: The Minister seemed to start by saying that Clauses 26 onwards—he referred to Parts 1, 3 and 5—would come into force at the end of the period of two months. Later, he said that Clause 26 onwards will come into force on Royal Assent. I do not think it appropriate to detain the Committee now. However, if I am correct that there have been conflicts in what has been said, perhaps we can correspond on it later.

Lord Rooker: If there is any doubt about the chronology I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords. However, I think that I have it right because I actually stuck to the notes. It is probably the way in which the amendments are drafted and have been considered. I would be happy to write to set the record straight.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I think that we are discussing the issue at this very late stage because of the problems associated with having the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill before we have the details of the regional assemblies Bill. We have been seeking to get that information throughout the course of this rather protracted Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 24 agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Commencement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 139 to 140A not moved.]
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Regions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Orders and regulations]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 144:
	Page 13, line 11, after "order" insert ", a direction"

Baroness Hanham: I shall be as quick as I can for this, the last gasp. These amendments are important in principle and I should appreciate a moment of the Minister's time to explain my reasoning.
	Amendment No. 144 would include directions on matters that would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State has significant scope for issuing directions under the Bill as drafted. Directions are not subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny, as we discussed earlier. Amendment No. 144 would impose a degree of control and ensure that any directions given have passed under the watchful eye of Parliament. This is not intended to cause trouble. One would hope that, in most cases, the process will be straightforward and the directions laid before Parliament and summarily approved—merely a matter of procedure rather than anything else. It is important to have safeguards, especially when it is unclear how the directions for referendums will work.
	Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 are probing amendments. Amendment No. 145 challenges the flexibility that Clause 27(3) provides. This subsection contains a limited Henry VIII power to make consequential, incidental, supplementary, repealing or revoking enactments. The Minister may argue that this approach was used in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, but we would like to hear from him why this subsection is deemed necessary. It appears to allow a greater freedom to the Secretary of State than is perhaps advisable.
	Amendment No. 146 relates to the "hybridity" mentioned in subsection (4). The relation between orders made under Part 1 of the Bill and those made under Section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, the resulting hybridity and the practical effect of subsection (4) are perhaps obvious to the Minister but they are not quite so clear to me. I would welcome a final bit of illumination for this evening. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 144 would mean that any direction-making powers under this Bill, including those to amend or revoke directions, would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The basic direction-making powers under the Bill are the power to direct the Boundary Committee to carry out a local government review in a region, and the power to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral matters. It is not normal practice for directions to be made by statutory instrument. The power under the Local Government Act 1992 for the Secretary of State to direct the Local Government Commission to carry out structural reviews was not required to be exercised by statutory instrument. Nor indeed were the powers in the GLA (Referendums) Act 1998 which are analogous to those found in Part 3 of this Bill. We fully intend to publish any direction made under this Bill and to deposit copies in the House Libraries.
	Of course, under Clause 15, the Secretary of State can only implement the recommendations of the Boundary Committee by order. And that order-making power would, under Clause 27, only be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. A similar situation applies to directions given to the Electoral Commission under Part 3 of this Bill. We would not be able to act on its advice regarding electoral matters until the Bill enabling elected regional assemblies to be established is enacted. And that subsequent legislation would, of course, be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. When the Delegated Powers Committee scrutinised the Bill last month it raised no objections to the existing provisions in this area. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment No. 144.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 145, which seeks to remove subsection (3) from Clause 27. Clause 27(3) enables an order or regulations to contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or savings as the person making the order or regulations thinks appropriate. The wording used is similar to that found in Section 156(5) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and loosely follows the approach in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992. I can assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister about this provision.
	A number of consequential amendments to other Acts to take account of the existence of a Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 are set out in the schedule to Clause 15. However, the nature and extent of some other consequential or supplementary requirements, including the necessary legislative amendments, may not become apparent until after the Bill is enacted. For example, it is not possible to foresee, ahead of receiving recommendations from local government reviews, what changes to legislation may be necessary to give effect to recommendations and orders for local government reorganisation. And of course any such provision would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 27(2). All of this was made clear to the Delegated Powers Committee last month. It raised no objections to this provision and of course it very carefully scrutinises this sort of provision. Again, I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment No. 145.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 146. This amendment seeks to delete subsection (5)(c) of Clause 27. This amendment would mean that if an order made under Section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for the purposes of our referendums were hybrid, it would be subject to the procedure for making hybrid instruments. As the Committee is aware, the hybrid procedure is complex and time-consuming. I believe that it would not be justified in this instance. Let me explain. We intend to apply the same provisions to all referendums on establishing a regional assembly, subject to the possibility of general change over time as new voting methods are established.
	That might seem to indicate that applying subsection (4) to conduct orders is unnecessary because hybridity—by definition—could occur only if we had at least one order making different provisions for different regions.
	However, this subsection is needed for certainty reasons. Regional referendums will not all take place at the same time. It may be several years before some regions become interested in a referendum. We cannot predict what a conduct order might look like in five or 10 years' time or how parliamentary conventions and other circumstances might have changed.
	The question of hybridity is a difficult one to judge. I have explained the circumstances in which it could arise within the context of this Bill. I hope that Members of the Committee now see that there is nothing sinister in our intent, but rather that we are seeking practical measures to tackle issues that may arise some way in the future. That was made clear to the Delegated Powers Committee last month, and it raised no objection to the provision either.
	With that explanation—a long and complicated one very early in the morning—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I am really glad that I asked all those questions. I shall enjoy reading the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Expenditure]:
	[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
	House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past two o'clock.